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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Brief Theology of Preaching - by W. Tyler Sykora

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Double predestination - by R.C. Sproul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another example is Romans chapter 8:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Is Limited Atonement? - R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who would Jesus slaughter? - By Rick Staggenborg, MD

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We discuss "sufficiency" here.

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold

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

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

Here's a chart from their website:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step three appears to be price and competition controls.

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

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

Hmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video link.

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Are You Righteous? - by Jacob Crouch

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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