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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Episode Thirteen, Bonus episode, final photos

  October 5th, 2024:

October 6th, 2024:

Episode one, introduction, here.

Episode two, disassembly and assessment, here.

Episode three, rough body work, here.

Episode four, quarters, here.

Episode five, toe panel, rockers, here.

Episode six, fenders, inner fenders, here.

Episode seven, the doors, found here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture Alone is Unscriptural - by John C. Wright

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

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

------‐--‐-------‐------

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

Here's the passage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

Irresistible Grace - by Joel E. Smit

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found here.

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

Until the last paragraph.

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

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

We have questions. 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

We discuss prophecy in some detail here and here.

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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

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

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

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

We discuss PSA in more detail here.

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

We must not dishonor God by misrepresenting Him.

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

Examining Dream Claims in Christianity - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Orthodox Christian view of sin - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

-------

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

How great the pain of searing loss

The Father turns His face away

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

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

We discuss this in detail here and here.

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

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

We must consider the Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Why Reformed Soteriology Matters - by Keith Mathison

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do You Need a Fresh Word from the Lord? - by Barbara Harper

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We often comment on the writings of supposed teachers who engage in Bad Bible Teaching, but today's article is one of the worst. Because the author believes that God does not speak to His people anymore except via the Bible, she filters everything she writes through this preconception. Therefore, almost every Bible verse she cites is incorrectly interpreted.

Careful Bible students would want to set aside their preconceptions and discover what the Bible is actually saying. Since the author does not do that, we will provide that service for her.

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

“The Error of Teaching That Original Sin Condemns the Entire Human Race” — The Rejection of Errors, Third and Fourth Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (1) - by KIM RIDDLEBARGER

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dear reader, you'll need some background information in order to understand the author's article.

The Synod of Dort was a tribunal of sorts assembled in the early 1600s by Calvinists/Reformists to refute the teachings of a theologian named Arminius. His followers were called Arminians. 

The Synod issued condemnation of Arminius' view (known as the Canons), thus affirming the doctrines of Calvin, including Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints (TULIP).

The below article explores the issue of "original sin" from the Calvinist perspective, which ties in with "total depravity."

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

What is the New Apostolic Reformation? part two - by Michelle Lesley

Part one is found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------

We continue our slog through this supposed explanation of what the NAR is. Ms. Lesley does manage to quote a few Scriptures in this half of her presentation, but add little light to the matter. She goes on and on about the NAR, leveling charge after accusation, never documenting a single one.

To add insult to injury, Ms. Lesley is unable (or unwilling) to teach what she considers to be the correct Biblical view. 

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

What is the New Apostolic Reformation? part one - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Part one of two.

The NAR is Ms. Lesley's boogie man. They are evil, heretical, and deceptive. She's deathly afraid that people will be drawn in unawares. So she's here to warn us of the dangers about what they believe, but she is unable quote a single primary source.

And in part one of this long article she only manages to quote a single Bible verse and snippets of three others. That's it.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching. 

We should mention, we are not here to defend the NAR, but rather to examine Ms. Lesley's flawed presentation. 

--‐--‐------‐---

Bad worship songs: The Wonderful Blood - Tiffany Hudson

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, The Wonderful Blood.

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

God’s Absolute Sovereignty - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. MacArthur is a Calvinist. Calvinism is a theological system promulgated by John Calvin in the 1500s, a collection of odd doctrines that have gained wide acceptance and are fiercely defended by its adherents. Calvinism is roughly represented by the acronym TULIP:

• Total depravity - people do not have the ability to participate in the salvation process in any way.
• Unconditional election - those who God chose to be saved are the elect.
• Limited atonement - Jesus died only for the elect.
• Irresistible grace - the elect cannot resist salvation.
• Perseverance of the saints - the elect cannot lose or forfeit their salvation.

Notice that none of these doctrines have anything to do with Christian living, generosity, worship, growing in faith, or living a holy life. They simply aren't relevant. But they are endlessly explained by the likes of Dr. MacArthur, which is really the purpose of his article. He's not explaining Christianity or even God's sovereignty, he's explaining Calvinism.

He wrestles with the conflicts created by his Calvinistic doctrine. Recognizing that he backs himself into theological corners, Dr. MacArthur declares that the reasons are unknowable and simply moves on. Now, we should say that we are not suggesting that everything about God is explainable, but rather that Calvinism makes it harder.

The main issue here, however, is the idea of God's sovereignty. We think Dr. MacArthur misuses the term. Sovereignty is simply the power or authority to rule. But to Calvinists like Dr. MacArthur sovereignty means absolute control. That is, because God is sovereign He is required to control everything. We think, however, that God gets to define His own sovereignty, that He isn't required to exercise His power simply because He possesses it, and that free will does not limit God's power or majesty in any way.

This means that the word must be misdefined to fit Calvinistic doctrine. The Bible doesn't really use the word in the manner Dr. MacArthur does. In the OT it is Yahweh Adonai [God the Lord; for example, in Ge. 15:2 where the NIV translates it "Sovereign Lord"]. The NT, also in the NIV, has several instances of "Sovereign Lord," but here we find single word, kurios [Lord or Master; for example, Matt 4:10] or despotés [ruler, for example, Luke 2:29]. "Sovereign" isn't in the Greek.

Lastly, we are thankful he quotes a good amount of Scripture, something surprisingly rare among some of these so-called Bible teachers. All of the verses are the standard ones Calvinists appeal to. 

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

Answering the Opposition- Responses to the Most Frequently Raised Discernment Objections - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Lesley, like many "discernment" types, is extremely sensitive when it comes to criticism [even mild] leveled at her. She happily blasts away at supposed false teachers, but when it comes to being on the receiving end, well, she gets pretty defensive.

We first note that Ms. Lesley never defines "discernment." She never shows us from the Bible where it describes what she is doing. In actual fact, there is no such thing as a discernment ministry beyond the four walls of the church she attends, and it's probably not her.

Second, Ms. Lesley commits several obvious doctrinal errors. Yet she considers herself a teacher. This is troubling.

Third, she will refer to the supposed false teacher as "twisted sister." This semi-disrespectful moniker means that she is describing a Christian person who has some things wrong. False teachers, however, are probably not Christians, and also lead publicly lascivious lifestyles.

Lastly, she quotes the Bible only when convenient. There are several instances (we have noted them as "Strikes") where she botches the contents of these unquoted Scriptures.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - JOHN A. BATTLE

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a typical cessationist presentation regarding tongues, but there are a couple of twists we had not heard before.

This is a long article, almost 4000 words, so we request the reader bear with us.

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

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.

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

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

The Left loves its myths. They will shout them from the rooftops every day, and if someone takes the time to refute them, well, it doesn't matter. The same myths will be shouted even louder the next day.

Here are some Leftists myths about Social Security:

• 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.

• The assets of the Trust Fund are invested in safe Treasury bonds paying interest to the Fund

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

• SS has an account for each person that accumulates on their behalf

• SS is like an insurance policy, and

• SS distributions have a multiplier effect.

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.

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

Contemporary Challenges to Christian Soteriology - Keith Mathison

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author makes a superficial attempt to explain his topic, but requires his readers to possess an understanding of terminology not commonly known. Thus it is a basic explanation which requires advanced knowledge. We simply don't understand what profit there is to require the reader to know so much to understand an explanation about elementary things, but this seems to be the author's preferred approach.

Most obvious, the title. The author presumes his audience knows what soteriology is, and everything he writes is premised on this. For the benefit of the reader, we will define the word. Soteriology is the study of the various doctrines relating to salvation. 

The author approaches this from the Calvinist viewpoint. Calvinism is the collection of doctrines taught by John Calvin 500 years ago, most particularly the idea that God has already chosen everyone who will be saved (predestination).

This knowledge will help the reader to some degree, but as we will note, the author fails to explain a lot of the terminology he uses, as well as the concepts he references. We will insert a double question mark whenever we come across one these instances. There will be a lot of them.

In addition, the author doesn't quote a word of Scripture. Not one. How does someone teach the Bible without quoting it?

We must deem this Bad Bible teaching.

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

Since Satan Knows the Ultimate Outcome of God’s Plan, Why Does He Continue Opposing God? - Randy Alcorn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is an incredibly well-documented presentation, filled with Scripture and light on personal commentary. Truly a Bible teacher after our own heart.

The author makes a series of observations and backs each with one or more pertinent Scriptures. We followed along with pleasure as the author presented this explanation, murmuring amens under our breath.

Until the end. The very last paragraph. It starkly contrasts with the bulk of the article. Let's quote:

If Satan was free to decide not to do what the Bible reveals he will do, then Satan would be more powerful than God. God would be proven not to be Sovereign. Additionally, God tells us He is Truth (“I am the way, the truth, and the life,” John 14:6) and His Word is Truth (John 17:17); if, in fact, Satan could decide that he will not act as prophesied in Revelation, then the Word would be false. If the Word is false, and it is the source that reveals both God and Satan, then nothing could be believed about either.

This is the author's only undocumented assertion in the entire article. He tells us that Satan does exactly what God purposed him to do, he has no choice. This idea has profound ramifications regarding the Problem Of Evil and the issue of free-will versus Calvinistic predestination. But the author doesn't discuss this. 

And in fact the rest of his presentation is irrelevant, because all that matters is that Satan is doing only what God has decreed. But he also writes, 

Satan’s entire delusion is that he is “like God.” This is the reason he fell and introduced sin into the creation. 

This would mean that God's purpose for creating Satan was so that he would rebel and bring about sin. Therefore, God created sin. It's inescapable. God dictated everything, including Satan's fall, therefore God is the cause of all the misery and perversion in the world.

If the author has an explanation for this, we would love to see it.

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

Why We Urgently Need a Progressive Policy Infrastructure - By Rob Kall

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This author seems to believe that the 80-plus years of Leftist political domination didn't happen, that the wrecking ball of leftist policies is non-existent, and that the installation of Leftist politics at every level of government isn't actually there. The leftist control of the news media, Hollywood, public education, and corporations is near total, but not according to the author.

He thinks that the Left lacks the infrastructure to compete with the Right.

Astonishing.

The unstated truth is, the Left thought it had a lock on the power structure, but the walls of the Leftist citadel have been cracking. Conservative ideas have been seeping in, and there became more and more avenues to obtain a right-leaning perspective. Regular America has always been in varying degrees politically Right, despite American institutions tracking Leftward. 

Within the last 40 or so years prominent conservative voices began arising, like Rush Limbaugh, who articulated the things mainstream America knew in their bones to be true but never heard from the media voices. When leftist agitprop is all people see and hear, the conservative message is like a breath of fresh air.

The Leftist citadel had never been challenged before, so they didn't know what to do. But being authoritarians, dissent cannot be permitted. So rather than develop rhetorical skills or logical arguments, they simply turned to personal attacks, deplatforming, and censorship, strategies which continue to be utilized with impunity by the Left even today.

So the author wants a leftist infrastructure built to compete with the Right. He appears to have forgotten that the Left has made many abortive attempts to compete with the conservative media. Air America, Thom Hartmann, Mike Malloy, Randi Rhoads, Al Franken... None of them has gained any traction in terms of popular appeal. 

No one wants to listen to the Leftist message. 

True to form, Leftists attribute their failures to packaging, presentation, or any other reason besides the message itself. They don't understand (or refuse to admit) that their message, unless camouflaged in euphemisms and feel-good language, is just not popular. People don't like the Leftist worldview. Period.

We hope the author gets his wish, and we will witness the inevitable demise of this latest leftist enterprise, accompanied with the excuse-making as to why it failed that will inevitably follow.

It should be entertaining.

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

Soul ties? - Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Lesley is asked a question about soul ties and completely drops the ball in her answer. And she doesn't quote a single Bible verse. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Gallatin County Health Department - Happy pride month

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a very odd Faceborg post from our county health department. It's really nothing more than pandering, a simpering show of support, with tobacco usage being used as the excuse.

Apparently gays are at higher risk because they smoke more. Do they smoke more? Well, yes. But Gallatin County wants to place blame, and the blame is 100% on external factors. Discrimination, stress, targeted advertising. Why? We don't know, except for the County's clear desire to virtue signal.

As much as they want to blame society and intolerant straights, discrimination is simply a questionable reason for higher tobacco use:

...if tobacco use is conceptualized as a coping behavior resulting from psychological distress associated with social rejection and stigmatization—as is the case in the Minority Stress Model26—then what accounts for the greater disparities in use among sexual minority women compared to sexual minority men?

Indeed, Since lesbians have a higher rate of tobacco use, are they subject to more discrimination than gay men? Of course not, blaming discrimination is nonsense. 

14% of people age 18 and above use tobacco products in Gallatin County. There are 126,000 people in the county, which equals 18,000 tobacco users. We will generously grant that 5% of Gallatin County residents are gay, which is 882 people. We will round that off to 1000 because we are so charitable. 

That is 0.8% of the population. This is what we mean by pandering. 

And because of this supposed stress, Gallatin County believes it's harder for gays to quit than it is for straights. They face "unique challenges." However, there is no evidence that quitting very addictive tobacco products is harder for one category of people than it is for another. Again, Gallatin County is simply trying to ingratiate themselves.

How are gays not offended by this?

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

Understanding the Old Testament sacrifices - By Simon van Bruchem

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has written about this before, and commits the same errors:

• Jesus did not "pay for the depth of our sins," He paid for us:

  1Co. 7:23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

• Jesus is not "the substitute for all who believe." Jesus didn't substitute for us, His blood washed our sins away. His sacrificial death was propitiation, that is, the turning away or satisfaction of wrath: 

  Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

  There was no need for Jesus to be punished in substitution for us if His blood is sufficient.

Lastly, we note that there is not a single Bible verse and only one tangential Bible reference in this article. How can a supposed Bible teacher explain the Bible without using it?

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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