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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Dr. Reich is one of them.

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

State of theology survey - by Ligonier.org

State of theology survey. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

In our blog we have discussed Calvinism at length.

Here are  those questions.

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does God Change His Mind? - by James Dolezal

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The failure of emotional religion - by Norman H. Street

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow.

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is Bad Bible Teaching. There's no other way to explain it. The author assumes his premise, restates it, proves points not under discussion, and in the end simply offers repeated bare denials.

So. Where does evil come from? The author never tells us. We can't imagine a poorer explanation of the topic.  

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

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

Excepted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

Audacious Prayer - Bryan Elliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our audacious persistence is for more of the Holy Spirit.

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

License to Not Sin - by Stan Gale

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

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

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song, This is a House of Prayer.

Video here.

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---------------------- 

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

 We found this meme on Faceborg:

Transcript:

Paul Washer

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

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

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

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

1) The Sacrificial Lamb vs. Material Needs:

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

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

The phrase Jehovah Jireh comes from

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

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

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

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

The Lord's Prayer is a pretty weighty testimony.

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

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

2) Under the Wrath of God:

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

3) Mediatorial:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Episode Thirteen, Bonus episode, final photos

  October 5th, 2024:

October 6th, 2024:

Episode one, introduction, here.

Episode two, disassembly and assessment, here.

Episode three, rough body work, here.

Episode four, quarters, here.

Episode five, toe panel, rockers, here.

Episode six, fenders, inner fenders, here.

Episode seven, the doors, found here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture Alone is Unscriptural - by John C. Wright

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

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

------‐--‐-------‐------

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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