Our View: In snubbing Helena's overreach, Bozeman wins one for The Gipper - Bozeman Chronicle

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

In an astounding display of ignorance, double think, and illogic, the editorial board of the Chronicle provides us with this opinion piece. The premise is, President Reagan opposed big government, so when the state of Montana tells the city of Bozeman it can't do things, Reagan would apparently approve when the city resists.

We, your humble bloggers, were unable to type for some period of time, so boggled we were by the pure, unadulterated nonsense found in this editorial. We make no guarantees, but will do our best to untangle this mess.

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

Five Prayers Every Pastor Should Pray for His Church - by Tim Counts

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

We are completely puzzled by this presentation. First, the author is a pastor, and apparently everything revolves around him in his church. He is the instigator of prayer as if there was no prayer ministry in his church. He is the leader of evangelism, apparently because no one else is available. He as pastor seems to have no need for, or cannot obtain, anyone in his church to serve, minister, or lead. 

He mentions his associate pastor, but we wonder what this man does. He also mentions leaders in item #3, but apparently they don't lead anything. What has led this man to believe he is the CEO of his church, and why is there no one else qualified to lead within his church?

Second, he is giving advice to other pastors, and the problem is that pastors aren't praying enough. Again, why not teach the congregation to pray? 

Third, the prayer advice he gives actually has nothing particular to do with pastorship, it's actually advice that belongs to every Christian.

Though the author does quote some relevant Scriptures, he teaches as if pastors are unique and special. Now perhaps he set out to advise pastors without realizing that it isn't actually advice for pastors. More likely, he has a skewed view of pastorship, one that makes him the top dog, and everyone else are underlings.

This is simply bad Bible teaching.

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

Ongoing Prophecy - by Rev. Angus Stewart

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We thought we had heard every argument in favor of cessationism, but this author offers a couple of truly odd twists. And he makes some glaringly false assertions.

A continuing complaint we have with these so-called Bible teachers is they are so averse to quoting the Bible. The author writes a little more 1500 words, but only 56 of them are actual quotes from the Bible.

(...)

Three tests regarding ongoing prophecy are set forth below, as well as the answers to two evasions.


Test 1

Test one involves asking, and getting answers to, these sorts of questions: Have you heard teaching by a modern prophet which is contrary to the Bible's teaching? Do renewalist prophecies contain false predictions? Do you know of a prophecy which was contradicted by events? One brother I know asked these questions to many renewalists and all of the people with whom he spoke said, “Yes!” What a damning indictment!

David Wilkerson, an Anglican Charismatic, predicted in 1972 that within the next twelve months the Berlin Wall would fall. But it fell 17 years later, in 1989!1 What did the church do in that instance? What did the church do in the many other instances where renewalist predictions have been proven false? If not in all cases, at least in the vast majority of them, Pentecostal and Charismatic congregations do absolutely nothing by way of church discipline. So much for the third mark of a true church (Belgic Confession 29)!

Deuteronomy 18:22 declares, “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” Regarding a prophet who makes a prediction which does not happen, “that prophet shall die” (v. 20). I Corinthians 5 tells us that the New Testament equivalent is excommunication. (Well, no. 1 Corinthians 5 is about sexually immoral people, not false prophets. There is only one place false prophets are mentioned, 2 Peter 2:1:

2Pe. 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them — bringing swift destruction on themselves. 

But even here Peter was specifically dealing with false teachers. And despite a lengthy condemnation he offers no remedy for them. In fact, there is no remedy for false prophecies in the entire NT. 

Generally speaking, the counsel of the NT is to not fellowship with those who claim to be Christians yet are sinners:

1Co. 5:11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

We simply do not find any NT mention of false prophets being cast out of the church.

We say all this because the author draws a parallel between killing false prophets in the OT and excommunicating false prophets in the NT. But this parallel does not exist. Which means the author has appealed to an OT text where the remedy is death. If a prophet must be 100% accurate, and that standard applies today, then why doesn't the death part of the verse apply today? Why should we accept the author picking and choosing this criteria?)

Has anyone heard of a Pentecostal being excommunicated because his or her prophecies were not fulfilled? Perhaps such a thing occasionally happens but if so it is exceedingly rare!

The Kansas City Prophets maintain that, if two-thirds of their prophecies come true, that is "pretty good," for that is a lot higher than it has ever been up until then! All the Kansas City Prophets have admitted that they have made predictions which did not come to pass. The Charismatic John White, who prophesied that he was going to live but subsequently died, said that, since we are all human beings, modern prophets will make mistakes in their predictions (even though God is speaking through them)!2

Do you know how many false prophecies it takes to reveal a person as a false prophet? One! Just one! Anyone who utters a single false prediction in God's name and remains impenitent should be excommunicated as a liar and a false prophet. (No, he must be killed. Perhaps we might press the author into service to administer the coup de grâce, unless of course he doesn't actually believe the Bible.)

Test 2

Imagine a Pentecostal prophet who makes a prediction that actually happens. However, the one who predicted it teaches false doctrine. How do we evaluate such a thing?

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 deals with this and so provides us with our second test. Verse 1 speaks of a prophet who performs "a sign or a wonder" which comes to pass (v. 2). (A prophecy is not "a sign or a wonder.")

But this prophet also teaches false doctrine (v. 2). (Prophets are not teachers.)

Even though his sign or wonder or prediction came to pass, he too is to be put to death as a false prophet (v. 5) or, in New Testament terms, excommunicated. (The author keeps equivocating. Why does he shrink back from killing false prophets?)

Deuteronomy 13 explains that God's purpose in all this is to test His professing people. If you really love God with all your heart and keep His commandments, even though someone does wonderful signs, because he teaches false doctrine, you must renounce him and excommunicate him (vv. 3-5). (No, this passage does not say that. It's right there: 

Deuteronomy 13:5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death...

We are wondering why the author wants so badly to modify the plain statements of Scripture. Hopefully we will find out.)

If tomorrow morning's newspapers carry accounts of remarkable prognostications by the Pentecostals that have been fulfilled—let us say, the nation's capital is destroyed by an earthquake and prophets from a Pentecostal assembly had predicted this—we still would not receive them as Christ's messengers. Why? Because mixed in with their proclamations comes Arminian free-willism and other false doctrine. (??? Calvinists usually don't go this far, to proclaim that those who don't believe Calvinist doctrines are all false teachers. Usually a Calvinist regards non-Calvinists as saved but mistaken.

Just so the reader understands, the author is making the Calvinistic claim that God predetermines everyone who is saved, and thus no one is able to make a decision for Christ. They are saved at the precise moment God has preordained. This means there is no free will to choose salvation. 

Also, an "Arminian" is simply a Christian who isn't a Calvinist.)

God would thereby be testing you: “Do you love me? Do you love the truth? Or are you more interested in the signs and wonders of a false church?” (The author attempts to apply OT promises made to Israel to the Church.)

Test 3

To go further, here is a third test. Let us say, for sake of argument, that there is a man who claims to be a Christian prophet and who makes predictions that always come to pass and who teaches orthodox doctrines. (So, even passing the first two tests is not enough?)

What would you do then? You ought to remember Ephesians 2:20, which states that "the apostles and prophets" are "the foundation" of Christ's church. (The author is inexplicably reluctant to quote the Bible, so we shall do his work for him: 

Ep. 2:19-21 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow-citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.

We first note the obvious: Paul was describing the church, not expounding upon apostleship or prophets. Second, forming the foundation of the church is not the sole role of apostles or prophets. Third, the possible existence of modern day apostles or prophets does not require construction of a new foundation.)

This foundation was laid in the first century and, being a foundation, can never again be relaid or augmented! (It is a mystery why the author thinks the foundation of the Church would be relaid. Yet the author's emphatic assertion suggests it's a significant issue.) 

The doctrine of the apostles and prophets, the foundation, is found in the complete, sufficient, inerrant and infallible Word of God. (Whoops. That's why we should actually quote verses. There is no mention of the apostle's doctrine or the resultant Bible here. 

The author is trying to change the topic by substituting the ministry of the apostles and prophets in establishing the Church with the things they wrote down that became the Bible. We shall not allow him to move the goalposts.)

Therefore, whether or not an extra-biblical prediction comes to pass, and whether or not their other doctrines are orthodox, any person who claims to be a prophet who receives direct revelation from the Lord is, by definition, a liar and a false prophet. Why? Because God is no longer giving direct revelation, since He has already laid the foundation of His church in the Holy Scriptures He delivered by the apostles and prophets whom He sent almost 2,000 years ago! (The author's exuberance is inexplicable. He thinks he's tossed down the trump card of his argument, but he's actually playing a different game.

In order to make this claim, the author makes several assumptions based on unestablished premises:

• Prophecy is the same as the Bible
• Prophecy's only purpose was to become the Bible
• The completion of the Bible means prophecy has ceased
• The foundation of the Church was the Bible

The author hasn't demonstrated any of these things, he merely assumes them.)

Two Evasions

There are two main attempts to wriggle out of this. The first evasion is the claim that there are two types of prophecy: inerrant and infallible prophecy found in the Bible, and fallible and errant modern prophecy which can and does include mistakes. This is the teaching of Wayne Grudem, amongst others.

This ought to strike you as a wretched argument, one to which the renewalists have been driven simply because they know (and practically everybody else knows) that there are numerous failed prophecies in the Pentecostal, Charismatic and Neo-Charismatic movements. Direct revelation from God is, by definition, authoritative, inerrant and infallible, ("By definition?" This is the matter under discussion. The author is not permitted to use his premise as evidence.

When the author says "authoritative" he means that every prophecy is on the level of Scripture. Therefore, a modern prophet is uttering words that need to be included in the Bible. This of course is nonsense. There are many prophets mentioned in the NT, and only two NT prophecies are mentioned, both by Agabus. No prophecies from Philip's four daughters. None from Silas. Not even any from some of the apostles. So how is it possible that all these NT prophets do not have any recorded prophecies, but modern day prophecies must be regarded as authoritative?)

for He is the God of truth who "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2), unlike the renewalist prophets and their apologists.

The second evasion—and this one is increasingly popular—is that God speaks today to unevangelized heathen (especially, it would appear, to Muslims) by dreams or visions. (Dreams and visions are not prophecies.)

A number of former Muslims have said that Christ appeared to them in their Islamic lands in a dream or vision and told them to go to such and such a place to hear God's Word from such and such a church or person.

There are even a number of Presbyterian and Reformed people who accept their claims. For some of these Protestants, this is the start of their own descent to Pentecostalism or Charismaticism, while for others, at the very least, it weakens their grasp of the truth of the sufficiency of Scripture (This comes in from left field. How would a dream impact the sufficiency of Scripture? What does the author mean by this?

We will explain. "Sufficiency" for the author means done, no more, all there is. The conventional meaning of the word, i.e., adequate, enough, or the right amount, is not in view here. So if "sufficient" means no more, and a dream is information from God, the dream is prophecy. That means the dream is "authoritative" and must be added to the Bible. But since the Bible is "sufficient," such things cannot be added to the Bible, and thus are false.

So via two false definitions and twisted logic the author pronounces modern day revelation as false.) 

and their opposition to the heresy of ongoing revelation.

Setting aside questions about the sort of church or Christian (whether true or false) these Muslims went to, and to what sort of Jesus they were converted (whether the true Christ or a false Christ), we deny that God gives direct revelation through dreams or visions, even to unevangelized heathen, even in Islamic countries. We do this because receiving a revelatory dream or vision from God, especially one that does not declare divine judgment upon the recipient (cf. Dan. 2; 4), constitutes a person as a prophet.

A prophet has two aspects to his office. First, he receives direct revelation from God and, second, he passes it on to the people. But the extraordinary office of a prophet has ceased since it was a temporary office involved in the laying of the foundation of the New Testament church (Eph. 2:20). (He repeats himself.)

Today, instead, we have the ordinary office of prophet included in the office of believer. This is a permanent office given to all Christians, in which we search the Scriptures and by the Spirit know the mind of Jesus Christ, and then speak of Him to others. (The author's sparse Scriptural documentation suddenly disappears.)

What we need today is not false prophets or false prophecies but the proper exercise of the believer's office as prophet, so that he hears, loves, obeys and witnesses of Jesus Christ, as He is set forth in Scripture and through the faithful preaching of His gospel by true ministers in their office of pastor or teacher. (Still no Scriptural documentation, especially since this is an astonishing claim. 

The pastor's sermon is prophecy??? 

This means that when a pastor is preaching he is prophesying to the congregation. The congregants all possess the "office" of prophet, which is the illumination of the Spirit to understand Scripture. This means the congregation [prophets] do not prophesy, the pastor [not a prophet] prophesies to the prophets.

We long for a single Scripture to document any of this. If this crazy mess makes any sense at all, our hats are off to you.)

Where love for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3) is lost, there is a congregation or an individual wide open to renewalism. Where love for God, His Christ and His Word is strong, the church is based solidly on the only true foundation and so is totally uninterested in the siren song of false prophets and ongoing prophecy!

1 Victor Budgen, The Charismatics and the Word of God (Great Britain: Evangelical Press, 1985), p. 11.
2 John F. MacArthur, Jr., Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), pp. 66-69.

Christian faith and hope - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have finally pulled the trigger and awarded Mr. Ratliff with his own tag. This unfortunately is not a compliment.

Mr. Ratliff spends a lot of words explaining "hope," mostly by quoting Martin Luther and then restating those quotes. He does provide us with some Scriptures, but none of them really demonstrate what he is explaining.

It seems like Mr. Ratliff is simply riffing. For example, he claims that "faith is bound to our intellect," but hope is in our wills. How does he know this? He never says. He makes many assertions like these but simply pulls them from Luther and/or his own imagination.

The Greek word for "faith" is pistis, which means:

From peitho; persuasion, i.e. Credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself -- assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

This suggests that faith is the act of believing, whether the initial "persuasion" to belief, or the continuing cultivation and growth of it. Certainly we know that faith, in particular, saving faith, is a gift (Ephesians 2:8). Yet we also find that faith is a "quantity" of sorts, which can be little (Mt. 6:30), great (Mt. 8:10), increased (Lk. 17:5), or fallen away from (Hebrews 10:38).

Hope is closely related to faith. The Greek word is el-pece':

Word Origin: [from a primary elpo "to anticipate, usually with pleasure"]

1. expectation

2. (abstractly or concretely) confidence

expectation of what is sure (certain); hope.

Mr. Ratliff tells us that hope is like wanting his college football team to win, but faith is like knowing his team will win. We see from the above definitions that this is incorrect, that hope is actually the certainty while faith is the belief.

We find little value in Mr. Ratliff's explanation, because it is nothing more than Luther's opinion regurgitated.

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

15 Ways to Discern False Teaching - by Kevin DeYoung

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

We have examined several of the author's previous articles, and have found them to be less than persuasive. In today's article he sort of supplies us with a framework for discerning false teaching, but really it's more like how to recognize teaching you disagree with. 

Sadly, as is typical for him, he quotes no Scripture here. At all. 

We shall explain what the author neglects, using Scripture to do so. Discernment is a spiritual gift, a supernatural empowerment:

1Co. 12:10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues...

Discernment requires the Holy Spirit: 

1Co. 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Discernment can be honed into maturity:

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

Discernment happens in the gathering of the saints for their edification and evaluation: 

1Co. 14:29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.

Discernment bears spiritual fruit: 

Ph. 1:9-10 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ... 

Ultimately, discernment is fundamentally recognizing the Holy Spirit: 

1Jn. 4:2-3 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.

 

The author never mentions the Holy Spirit. And, he doesn't seem to be aware of the biblical case for discernment, or perhaps, it doesn't matter to him.

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

Social Security has plenty of reserves, and other myths

Introduction

We often see leftists defend Social Security by asserting that the Social Security Trust Fund is a stand alone account with trillions of dollars of assets, and therefore does not have anything to do with the finances of the federal government, or national debt or deficit.

They also brag that the assets of the Trust Fund are invested in safe Treasury bonds paying interest to the Fund. 

Leftists further claim that SS is completely solvent and only needs the income cap to be rescinded so that millionaires pay SS tax on their entire income.

In addition, they claim that SS has an account for each person that accumulates on their behalf

Lastly, they claim that SS is like an insurance policy.

None of this is true.

As is typical for the Left, they tell partial truths, omit key details, and twist and dissemble until it is impossible to discern the real situation. So our purpose today is clarify.

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

Bad worship songs: Spirit break out - Bryant, Hellebronth, Dhillion, Hughes (Bethel)

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, Spirit Break Out.

The Mailbag: Potpourri (…Jesus died for YOU?) - by Michelle Lesley

Found here.

Ms. Lesley grapples with a problem created by her Calvinistic doctrine. She believes in "Limited Atonement," which is the idea that Jesus' sacrificial death is applicable only for those who are predestined to be saved. So, Calvinists believe Jesus died only for the Elect.

This means that Ms. Lesley thinks she cannot tell a non-believer that Jesus died for them because she doesn't know it that person is one of the Elect. However, if one is not a Calvinist then it's not a problem at all to tell someone "Jesus died for you." 

This is one of the many issues we have with Calvinism, that it creates problems that need to be worked around. When confronted with Bible verses that contradict their doctrines, Calvinists must invent explanations. However, we choose to read the Bible for its plain meaning:

Ro. 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 

(Plain meaning: He didn't die just for the elect, He died for the ungodly. )

2Co. 5:14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all...

(Plain meaning: Jesus died for all, not just the elect.)

Jn. 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 

(Plain meaning: He took away the sin of the world, not just the sin of the elect.) 

Ro. 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 

(Plain meaning: His one act of righteousness brings life for all men, not just for the elect.) 

Ro. 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

(Plain meaning: God's intent is to have mercy on all men.) 

1Ti. 2:3-6 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 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.

(Plain meaning: He is given as a ransom for all men, not just for the elect.) 

1Ti. 4:9-10 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10 (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

(Plain meaning: He is the savior of all men, especially those who believe.)

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

Crushed For Our Iniquities - by Justin Huffman

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author explains the Calvinist/Reformed belief that the Father punished Jesus for our sins. We reject this repulsive and pernicious doctrine. We will explain below.
-----------------

Distorted Doctrine Destroys Lives - by John Piper

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have commented on Dr. Piper's teachings several times on our blog. We haven't been impressed, unfortunately.

Today Dr. Piper provides us with a moving target. He uses the terms doctrine, theology, beliefs, reality, truth, and knowledge of God as if they were synonymous. This makes it difficult to ascertain his point, and in fact he never really tells us what the title promises. Certainly a poor or mistaken belief about God is a bad thing, but we want to know how distorted doctrine destroys lives.

If we were to speculate we would discern that Dr. Piper intends to tell us that having the right set of doctrines is more important than anything else. In fact, he implies that one cannot love God without complete doctrinal purity.

Therefore, it seems the intellectual process is the only avenue by which one can come to God. This might make the reader wonder, what about the intellectually disabled, those with Down's Syndrome, autism, or other afflictions that impair cognitive function? Are these people unable to love God? What about those folks who aren't intellectually based in their cognitive make-up? We all know people who are more "feelers" than thinkers.

It seems narrow to suggest that one cannot know, love, or please God without the proper intellectual framework.

Happily, he does quote several Scriptures. This is somewhat a departure from his usual practice. 

Letter to the editor: Dissent was once part of our DNA; now we see automatic consent - by Douglas Mawhinney

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Apparently the letter writer doesn't understand that dissent is only permitted for the Left. Conservatives are shouted down, deplatformed, shadow banned, and boycotted. Here's the Left's position on dissent:

The letter writer bemoans the loss of the 60s protest culture, viewing the past through rose-colored glasses. Such a wonderful time it was. Just, moral, and noble they were. Opposing "the Man," uplifting the downtrodden, free love and free money for all.

Apparently the letter writer doesn't realize that all that supposed "distrust of big government" eventually led to those same people populating the halls of congress, school boards, and the judiciary. 

When the dissenters and protestor got power they became "the Man." They now are the oppressors, the silencers, the policers of conformity.  They are the persecutors, the intolerant ones, they are the ones who silence people who express their dissent. It is the intolerant Left that has wielded the power of government against their adversaries. 

The Left prosecutes grandmothers for silently praying outside of abortion clinics. 

The Left accuses parents of being terrorists for speaking up in school board meetings. 

The Left runs people out of their jobs for violating leftist orthodoxy. 

The Left accuses conservatives of being book banners for opposing pornography in schools.

The Left forces cake decorators to endorse speech they disagree with.

The Left tells you want you cannot say, think, and do. 

The Left, not Trump. 

Burning buildings and taking over entire city blocks is noble and desirable, but a mostly peaceful protest in Washington DC is treason and insurrection. 

Dismantling government power structures is Gestapo tactics, but forcing people to do things they don't want to do is not authoritarian. 

When Trump defunds entire government departments and cuts bloated bureaucracy, that makes him a fascist, but when leftist California governor Newsome bans gas powered vehicles and wants California to be totally net zero, that's a permissible exercise of government power.

When encountering dissent, Trump actually has a rejoinder and doesn't just roll over like previous Republican presidents. The Left doesn't like it when someone disagrees with them, and especially when Trump disagrees with them.

So Trump tells these publicly funded colleges that they are no longer allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. The letter writer wants these colleges to "dissent," i.e., continue favoring certain races over others in its admission and grading practices. This apparently is tyranny.

In actual fact, with Trump as president the leftist oppressors are being negated. The entrenched power structures are being overturned. They are losing their power to control your lives

Leftists stand for, embrace, and implement, oppession, persecution, hate, and division, all the while accusing their political opposition of doing the very thing they're actually doing. 

So the letter writer is completely unaware of his own irony. He really believes the leftist agitprop coming out of the mouths of the talking heads on TV. He thinks that he's being told the truth by the very people who want to take away his freedom, take his money, and force him into government programs and government facilities.

Such is the sad legacy of the 60s anti-war, anti-government, anti-tyrant movement. They are laughable caricatures of themselves. 

They became what they protested.

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

What Does a Pastor Do? - by Joel Smit

Found here.

This author repeats the talking points of the traditional church view, that the pastor is the presiding head of the local church. This is not found in the Bible.

Paul used used the term "pastor" [poimén] only once, in Ephesians 4:11. Besides this verse and the references to the literal shepherds who witnessed the company of angels [Luke 2:8], the term is never used in the NT regarding a man. 

Another related word, poimainó, is used in 1 Peter 5:2, among other places: 

1Pe. 5:2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers...

Peter wrote these words to the elders. The elders are supposed to be the shepherds and overseers, not a pastor. There is nothing in the NT that indicates anyone was named to be a pastor, or that pastors lead churches, or what their duties are. 

In addition, though the author quotes several Bible verses, he either misrepresents them or the verses he cites do not bolster his case. In fact, he lies to us.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.)

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

What Is TULIP? - by Robert Rothwell

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have previously commented on this author's articles here and here. We are not surprised, therefore, that he does not quote Scripture today, because he didn't before. Well, in fairness, we must concede he quote a snippet of a verse, but it does not document any of the points he makes.

Over 1600 words, nine of which are Scripture. Really, how can a "Bible" teacher teach the Bible without quoting it? It continually mystifies us.

The biggest problem Calvinists have is their need to create complicated explanations in order to harmonize Scripture with their doctrines. Invariably this means to take verses out of context and insert themselves into them. 

This is what happens when doctrines are used to interpret Scripture.

But ultimately, our issue is the irrelevance of these doctrines. TULIP does not change any aspect of Christian living. These doctrines do not change any privilege or obligation we have. None of them speak to generosity, worship, obedience, holiness, or fellowship. A lost person still needs repentance and salvation, regardless of the truth of Calvinism.

As such, these doctrines are diversions, intellectual exercises that have no practical purpose. Aside from their repugnance, these doctrines are irrelevant.

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

The Mailbag: Is it biblical for women to carry out The Great Commission? - by Michelle Lesley

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

It hasn't been that long since Ms. Lesley last appeared in our blog. As is typical, she seems unusually preoccupied with parsing, subdividing, and micro-analyzing 1 Timothy 2:12. However, in the below excerpt she doesn't quote it. In fact, she doesn't quote any Scriptures at all. 

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

We shall quote it: 

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

From these nineteen words Ms. Lesley has in the past provided excruciating analyses about what a woman can or cannot do: Read the announcements in church, sing in the choir, teach Sunday school, give pro-life talks in church, administer communion, be a deacon (ess), teach the children's sermon during the service, and, teach the Bible in a nursing home. All this based on a single misinterpreted verse.

So, continuing in this vein she now wants to explain if women can evangelize or baptize. As mentioned, her explanation will not explain any Scripture. In fact, she will provide no evidence or documentation at all, nothing but bare assertions.

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

Hebrews 2:3-4 and the Sign Gifts - by Bible.org

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This article goes way over our heads in its discussion of Greek grammar. We could barely follow. However, the presentation has a fatal flaw. It's not the author's analysis of the Greek, but rather the assumptions upon which that analysis is based.

In a departure from our usual practice, we will begin by only pointing out the assumptions the author makes. Because it doesn't matter how sound the exegesis of the Greek is if the assumptions are wrong. Towards the end we will provide some commentary as the author begins to draw his conclusions.

We will find that the author completely drops the ball. He's filtering Scripture through is doctrine, and it colors his presentation.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

What is "born again?" - 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.

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

Five Years (Pastors making changes in their churches) - By J.V. Fesko

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

Dr. Fesko has quite a resume:

Dr. Fesko is a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Harriett Barbour Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi. He initially served as a church planter from 1998 until 2004 when the church particularized and called him as their pastor. He served as pastor of Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian Church from 2004 until 2009 when he was called to serve as Academic Dean and Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California until June of 2019. Dr. Fesko's research interests include the integration of biblical and systematic theology, soteriology, and early modern Reformed theology. Dr. Fesko’s publications include, Reforming Apologetics, Romans: Lectio Continua, The Spirit of the Age, Death in Adam, Life in Christ, The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption, The Covenant of Redemption, The Theology of the Westminster Standards, Songs of a Suffering King, and Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology, among many others. His scholarly essays have appeared in various books and journals including Perichoresis, Reformed Theological Review, Journal of Reformed Theology, Church History and Religious Culture, Calvin Theological Journal, Trinity Journal, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, and the Westminster Theological Journal.

As a scholar and a highly-educated pastor and theologian, Dr. Fesko is expected to provide us with an unparalleled and insightful biblical commentary. But there isn't a single mention of the Bible, let alone a quote from it. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

Dr. Fesko wants to advise new pastors to wait before making changes in their new churches. That's it. That's the whole of his article. While we would concede that the advice is sensible, what we don't understand is why he thinks a pastor ought to be in a position to impose his will on a church at all. The biblical role of a pastor is to care for the flock. There is no mention of a pastor being in charge of the local church. 

A church is governed by elders:

 

1Pe. 5:1-2 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers...

Seminaries are selling their students a falsity, and thus are preparing them for operating in deception. Dr. Fesko is participating in this when he should be advising churches to embrace the biblical model of church leadership.

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

Social Security can benefit future generations – if Congress acts Margie McDonald, Guest columnist

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has nothing new to say. She repeats, almost verbatim, the inane talking points the Left has been using for decades. Here's one recent example.

Inevitably, the Social Security system is proclaimed solvent, followed by recommending crucial fixes. So it isn't solvent. Then, the solution always offered is to increase taxes, always on the rich. Reforms like clamping down on fraud or increasing efficiencies are always rejected.

So the author isn't really advocating for saving Social Security, her intent is to bolster leftist positions and attack and denigrate Republicans. 

She is all-in on The Agenda, and parrots The Narrative. The Agenda is the disassembly of The System, which is the American culture and way of life. The Narrative is the daily talking points disseminated by "Central Command," serving the implementation of The Agenda, and dutifully repeated by the media and talking heads.

Almost everything written here is false, misleading, or mistaken. But that doesn't matter, because accuracy or truth is not relevant. Only The Agenda is relevant.

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

Why did you use the word "Imputed?" An analysis of imputed righteousness

Introduction 

I asked a friend to explain his use of the word "imputed," and he sent me this detailed analysis (source unknown.) Therefore, because my friend is a careful and analytical thinker, I resolved to provide him a systematic, detailed (and I hope biblical) analysis. It's somewhat long post, so I hope the reader will persevere to the end. 

My initial, perhaps visceral response was a wholesale rejection of the doctrine of imputation, because it is rooted in Calvinism/Reformed theology. This blog has analyzed various Calvinistic/Reformed doctrines quite frequently, and to our surprise we have found the biblical basis for them to be astonishingly weak.

Let's first provide the dictionary definition of imputation:

impute - verb

1. To ascribe (a misdeed or an error, for example) to:

affix, assign, blame, fasten, fix, pin on, place.

2. To regard as belonging to or resulting from another:

accredit, ascribe, assign, attribute, charge, credit, lay, refer

This means imputation is a quality or attribute affixed or assigned to something that doesn't actually belong to it. So this doctrine teaches that Christ's righteousness is assigned to believers, and our sin is assigned to Christ (double imputation). 

We are therefore "imputed" with Christ's righteousness, which is often expressed something like, "when the Father looks at you He sees Jesus." Thus Christians are only regarded as righteous because they are not actually righteous themselves. God essentially pretends we are righteous. It seems we are barely even saved because we're still sinners. We have only been "imputed" with righteousness.

Background

The biblical basis of imputation originates here:

Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (KJV)

The Hebrew word for "counted" is chashab, to think, account. That is, something was added to Abraham that God took into account. God thought of Abraham differently. 

I could find no translation of this verse that used the word "imputed," even though this is the source of the doctrine.

The same word, chashab, is used in these verses:

Ps. 44:22 Yet for your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.

Ps. 88:4 I am counted among those who go down to the pit; I am like a man without strength.

Ps. 144:3 LORD, what is man that you care for him, the son of man that you think of him?

Is. 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

I quoted some of the other uses of the Hebrew word in order to broaden the sense of how the word is used in various contexts. Notice that none of these verse make sense if the word "imputed" is substituted. Our preliminary conclusion is that imputation rests on a shaky foundation. 

In the NT Paul quoted Genesis 15:6:

Romans 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. (KJV)

I used the KJV because it is the only commonly used translation that uses the word "imputed." 

Chapter four of Paul's letter is where he explained how righteousness is obtained. As it happens, Romans 4 is also the focus of the below explanation of imputation my friend sent me. So that is where my focus will be.

I will insert my rejoinders in bold within the text of the explanation.

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