Exposing The Rapture Myth You've Been Taught All Your Life - by J.D. King

Found here.

This is a provocative article about a popular doctrine. For me, it speaks to a gradual change in my own doctrine, because I used to be enamored with end-times speculation and intricate explanations of how Ezekiel and Daniel and Revelation supposedly connected to each other.

But even when I embraced this, it always was in the back of my mind that this all was very thin stuff. Now this article explains what I always suspected, that the rapture doctrine is a little less than a scriptural certainty.

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

Bad worship songs: Praise Goes On - by Brown/Furtick/Joye

Audio link.

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. Praise Goes On has a catchy beat and slick production. But... it's a bad worship song.

You might also want to check out our criteria for judging worship songs.

First the lyrics:

The Christian Doctor Fighting for a Woman’s Right to Choose - BY DR. WILLIE PARKER

Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------------------------

It should be clear to anyone considering this article that it is going to be an effort to burnish the credentials of this doctor for the purpose of justifying abortion, while wrapping it up with a "Christian" label. 

But of course there is nothing Christian about it. He doesn't discuss his faith at all, he doesn't quote any Scripture, he really seems to avoid the issues of his supposed Christianity.

We must conclude, therefore, that his Christianity is a rhetorical excuse designed to give cover for his horrific occupation.

****Update**** It's easy to claim Christianity for his cover, but I wonder now what he will claim in light of sexual misconduct allegations.
----------------------------------

God Died on the Cross - by Fred Sanders

Found here. A good explanation.
-------------------

In the days leading up to Good Friday, I’m going to post a few theological answers to questions I get every year around this time. The answers will be unblushingly doctrinal, so prepare to put your thinking caps on.

This little series isn’t mainly about getting the theology right for its own sake (though I’m strongly inclined to do that, because who wants to get the theology wrong?). It’s mainly to clear a few theological questions out of the way before the Good-Friday-to-Easter church sequence arrives.

My dream is that we could think hard about theology online during the first part of the week, and then have our thoughts in order before we experience the annual remembrance of the death and resurrection of Christ in the last part of the week in church. These posts are intended to clear away some theological confusions that might prevent intelligent participation in the life of the church.

The first one is what it means to say that God died on the cross. My answer is an excerpt from a book I edited about ten years ago:

Last Crusade: The Promise of Peace - John C. Wright

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

The whole of that nameless modern movement which goes by a legion is names, whether it be called Political Correctness, Liberalism, Socialism, Collectivism, Totalitarianism, Humanism, Secularism, Hedonism or Nihilism, rests on one axiom of moral philosophy: moral agnosticism.

This axiom states that there is not and cannot be a well formed conscience, or a conscience which gives reliable, trustworthy, and universal information about the nature of right and wrong, on the grounds that there is no such thing as universal right and wrong, and that the conscience is a by-product of psychological conditioning by society.

The argument given by legion-named movement typically follows the form of questioning some traditional moral precept, such as chastity, and characterizes this rule is not being confirmed by science, and then takes some breach of that rule, such as incest or homosexuality, and justifies or glorifies it. Then if any man’s conscience troubles him over marrying his own sister, then the argument points at this as an example of the conscience misreading the nature of right and wrong.

House bill isn’t about privacy, would harm Montana - By Megan Maier

My comments in bold. The text of HB 609 is found here.
----------------

HB 609 purports to protect privacy, but would actually harm Montanans, creating the precise problem it intends to solve. It requires those using protected facilities to use the facility designated for their “biological sex,” ignoring that one of every 2,000 babies is born intersex. (An intersex condition that "can involve abnormalities of the external genitals, internal reproductive organs, sex chromosomes or sex-related hormones." In other words, it's a condition that may have no physical manifestation. And, external manifestations vary. In other words, there is little evidence that "intersex" individuals would be harmed. 

Explaining my requirements in the cessationism debate

We set forth these requirements when considering the claims of cessationists:

1. Biblically-based
2. No appeals to contemporary expressions of charismata
3. No appeals to silence
4. No appeals to events or practices of history

Three Reasons God is a Cessationist - by Jordan Standridge

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

As has become our custom, we shall examine these claims for cessationism. Our criteria for a successful defense of cessationism: 

1. Biblically-based
2. Does not appeal to contemporary expressions of charismata
3. Does not appeal to silence
4. Does not appeal to events of history

Let's see how Mr. Standridge does.

Principles regarding worship songs

Principle 1: A worship song is an expression to God, and best addresses Him in the first person. Songs that address the people ("How great is our God, sing with me..."), while they might contain elements of worship, are generally not worship songs.

FB meme, Democracy vs. a Republic

A FB friend shared this, and a dishonest interlocutor chimed in.

On Emotionalism and the Gospel - by Joshua Jenkins

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

We think Mr. Jenkins regards emotional responses in church as a bad thing, but he doesn't explain why. He doesn't give parameters for what constitutes "excessive" emotionalism. He doesn't tell us how emotionalism can be differentiated from a real touch from God.

Although emotion is a natural physical expression, for most reformed/ conservative Christians it is a unholy. This is what the author's case is built upon, an assumption.

The author neither quotes nor references any Scripture at all. None. We wonder how a supposed Bible teacher manages to completely avoid the Bible.

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

Many Christians have likely experienced emotionalism - the moments at various worship services and events when excessive focus is placed on a person's emotions. (We wonder what he considers "excessive.")

Often, you will see it in places where “decisions” or “worship experiences” are elevated above proper worship of God or, quite frankly, above the gospel. ("Often." Will the author cite examples?)

In its ugliest forms, the leader attempts to manipulate the congregation’s emotions to meet whatever their end goal is. and emotional atmospheres are dubbed “a move of the Holy Spirit.” (Yet again the author offers a loose accusation. Will he back it up?)

Meta-bigotry - By Edward Feser

Found here. A very good article.

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

Sophistry is the attempt to persuade someone of some proposition or policy by the use of fallacious arguments. What I have called meta-sophistry involves accusing others of fallacies or of sophistry in a manner that is itself fallacious or sophistical. The meta-sophist cynically deploys labels like “sophist” as a rhetorical device by which he might smear and discredit an opponent. Where the opponent’s arguments can easily be read in a way that involves no commission of fallacies, the meta-sophist will instead opt for a less charitable reading so as to facilitate the accusation that the opponent is a sophist. Because the meta-sophist poses precisely as a foe of sophistry and fallacious argument and as a friend of reason, his brand of sophistry is especially insidious. He is like the politician who makes the loud condemnation of sleazy politicians a useful cover for his own sleaziness. (As I have documented many times over the years – e.g.here, here, and here – “New Atheist” writers are paradigmatic meta-sophists.)

The Shack - heretical? FB Conversation

Facebook is a rich treasure trove of people who might be intelligent but are unable to think through things. Here a FB friend Karen posted how much she liked the Shack movie, and one of her friends posted a quote by the author William Paul Young as supposed proof that he is a heretic.

I should note that I am not making any claim about Mr. Young's theology apart from the supplied quote.

Science can be trusted, scientists cannot - FB conversation

A post by a FB friend.

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

shared Skepticus's video.

March 14 at 9:29pm ·

LikeShow more reactions

CommentShare

How the System Got Broken, and Why It Can’t Be Fixed - BY NEAL GABLER

Found here. My comments in bold.
--------------------

The author is being astonishingly ironic here. The Left has always hated the Constitution, except when it can be made to serve their purposes. The Constitution is racist. Obama doesn't like it because it outlines "negative rights," and doesn't empower government with a list of must do's. The electoral college is bad. Free speech is bad. The Second Amendment is bad. Using the military is bad.

We are forced to conclude that there is not much of the Constitution that the Left likes. Yet here we have a leftist complaining about the Constitution they hate as being broken, and perpetrated by, you guessed it, the Republicans and Trump. Hmm.

And by the way, the Left wants it broken. If it's broken it can be blamed for society's ills. And if it can be blamed, it must be replaced by a better system, i.e., socialism...
-----------------------

The electoral failure of the Left

The Left still hasn't figured out what happened to them. They lost, and lost badly. Nationwide, more than 1000 offices shifted Republican since 2010.

First, they lost by being unable to articulate reasoned responses to criticism. Unable to formulate an argument, their first, and often only, technique is hysterical invective.

But name-calling, screaming, and protesting doesn't work anymore. There's only so many times people can be called racists or haters before they say, "Why should I care what you think?" People aren't withering away anymore when you call them vile names. They are tired of hiding from you hateful leftists, and are now proudly coming out as Americans.

Second, the Left lost lost because they were unable to explain how doing more of what they are doing will change the results of what they had already done. They're left defending the status quo, a nine decade legacy of failure, economic, moral, and political devastation, unequaled in world history.

They're doing their level-best to maintain the failed systems and programs of yesteryear, yet they call themselves progressives.

How to Fake an Islamophobia Crisis - by Daniel Greenfield

Found here. Great expose' of a fake civil rights group, the Southern Poverty Law Center.

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

Look out! It’s another fake Islamophobia crisis.

“Huge Growth in Anti-Muslim Hate Groups During 2016: SPLC Report,” wails NBC News. “Watchdog: Number of anti-Muslim hate groups tripled since 2015,” FOX News bleats. ABC News vomits up this word salad. “Trump cited in report finding increase in US hate groups for 2nd year in a row.”

The SPLC stands for the Southern Poverty Law Center: an organization with slightly less credibility than Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Clown College, and without the academic degree in greasepaint.

And you won’t believe the shameless way the SPLC faked its latest Islamophobia crisis.

Charitable nonprofits shouldn’t become political - By Mary Peterson

Found here. My comments in bold.
-----------------------

I write today as board chair for the Montana Nonprofit Association (MNA), a membership organization representing more than 600 nonprofits across Montana.

A threat to Montana’s charitable nonprofits recently emerged at the federal level. Legislation was introduced to politicize nonprofits through the repeal of the Johnson Amendment. For 60 years this amendment – put in place by Dwight Eisenhower - has successfully protected charitable nonprofits, religious congregations, and foundations from being hounded for political endorsements, financial contributions and more. (Notice the less-than-clever phraseology. The Johnson Amendment FORBIDS non-profits from engaging in certain kinds of speech. It PREVENTS non-profits from spending their money on certain things. It DICTATES the behavior of non-profits.

Most certainly, the Johnson Amendment does not protect non-profits from anything.)

The Trinity, heresies, and the use of language

After yesterday's Facebook conversation about TD Jakes and his supposed heresy, I got to thinking about the Trinity and what constitutes heresy.

Before I go further, I need to be clear: What is revealed to us about God, His nature, and His plan of salvation is plain and available to us in the Scriptures. There is no lack of clarity here.

It is one thing to assert that the use of certain words or the embrace of certain ideas about doctrines might be problematic. It is an entirely different thing to question the salvation status of a person who deviates ever so slightly from our doctrine. Since none of us has perfect doctrine, indeed, since perfect doctrine is not a requirement for salvation (if such a thing were possible), we should be slow to dismiss someone who has ideas different than our own.

My first thought is that over the years I have gotten more skeptical about "systematic theology." Not that I doubt its utility, but more like, it seems to me to be a futile exercise to attempt to reduce an infinite God down to a series of precepts and definitions.

We have a western cultural mindset, which is characteristically binary. That is, we tend to reduce ideas down to an either-or situation. A lot of hand wringing has resulted from this. For example, if God is love, how can he permit suffering is a binary statement that supposedly creates an conflict. If God knows everything, then how can we have free will is another. I'm sure you can think of many of these as well.

TD Jakes is not a Modalist - FB Conversation

Posted by a FB friend.

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

NOT a MAN of God or a man after Gods heart.

Link.

T.D. Jakes Comes Out for ‘Gay Rights’ and ‘LGBT Churches,’ Says Position is ‘Evolving’

Megachurch leader and author T.D. Jakes says that homosexuals should attend congregations that affirm their lifestyle and that politics do not need to reflect…

CHRISTIANNEWS.NET

Me: With all due respect, it's pretty clear he's telling gays to find a church that agrees with them as opposed to them trying to change a church to their viewpoint.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Paul C: True Rich, but isn't that a cop-out? He's just decided that the truth of the Word of God isn't worth sharing with the gay community so send them to an "affirming" congregation to continue to hear the lies that the lifestyle is OK.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Me: Where did he decide the word of God isn't worth sharing? I don't see any comment about that. He's making comments about gays in churches.

The Left, including gays, infiltrate institutions, move into leadership, and then start changing the institutions into their own liking. We've seen this time and again. So I whole heartedly agree with Jakes. If you're gay and you don't like Bible believing churches, move on.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Paul C: He's told the gay community that it's best to go find a church that teaches that homosexuality is acceptable. It's sad that he has chosen to send them away instead of taking on the loving task of sharing the truth with them instead of being worried they would "take over" his congregations theology (which is in jeopardy already). If he isn't capable of sharing the truth in love with them, then he believes the TOTAL word of God is not worth sharing.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr

Me: You created a Category Error. Sending gays on their way rather than letting them divide Bible-believing churches has nothing to do with the "acceptability" of sodomites.

And you don't know that he's not "capable" of sharing the truth. You are speculating about a great many things from a very simple statement.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Paul C: Rich, I'm not speculating on anything. He's abdicating his role as a pastor/preacher/teacher by sending the sinner away from the truth. Show me how he IS capable if you disagree. All evidence, from his own mouth, show's he's either incapable, or doesn't care enough about them to help them out of that darkness. He's taking the easy way out instead of sharing the hard teachings of the Bible. BTW, I go to a church where homosexuals are welcomed as long as they are there to learn about Jesus, the Gospel and what it says about the lifestyle. There is a Biblical standard in place if any of them decide to try to divide us.

It's become easy for the Church in America to close it's doors to anyone different (by suggesting they go somewhere "affirming", it's the same thing) OR the church turns to a wet noodle and accepts everyone regardless of their theology. I'm thinking if Jesus were the pastor of a church in America today he wouldn't be suggesting they go find an "affirming" congregation. Would he? Or would He love them enough to keep them right where they are, loving them, teaching them the truth and helping them make more Bible following disciples out of their other lied-to gay friends.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr · Edited

Me: He is not abdicating anything. Again, the issue is narrow, and you're taking it way beyond its scope, inferring all sorts of things. He is quite right to protect his church from wolves.
Like · Reply · 18 mins

Paul C: And I see you're inferring that he is trying to protect his church from wolves which is not what the article said.
Like · Reply · Just now

Me: A reasonable inference: "if you don’t like those convictions and values [and] you totally disagree with it, don’t try to change my house, move into your own..."

Paul C: Rich, he himself said his belief system on homosexuality, has evolved and is evolving. So I don't think he's considering them wolves anymore
Write a reply...

Paul H: Evolves just like God's word, 'cause it living and active and stuff! He can affirm gays all he wants; his is a "church" of modalist heresy.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited

Paul H: Point being, regardless, he is not a man of the God of the Bible.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs

Me: Jakes is no longer a modalist.



T.D. Jakes Embraces Doctrine of the Trinity, Moves Away from…
CHRISTIANITYTODAY.COM|BY CHRISTIANITY TODAY
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · 2 hrs

Me: I suspect that this kind of "evolving" is good, no?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Paul H: He is not a trinitarian according to the article. Calling the persons of the trinity "manifestations" still falls under modalism. He has not "evolved" at all, according to this article.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Me: Um, the title of the article?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Paul H: I like to actually read articles people post as possible correctives to my thinking. He may have answered Driscoll's questions in a manner satisfactory to Driscoll, who obviously did not bother to have Jakes define his terms, but his affirmations are shallow...as I said, he refers to the persons as manifestations, which term in and of itself is fraught with orthodox error, and in Jakes context, a very specific one.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Me: I point out where he's no longer a modalist, and rather than accept you were wrong, you move on to the next thing.

Jakes is influential. His move toward orthodoxy is excellent news (from 5 years ago, by the way), and frankly, we ought to celebrate.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Paul H: Whatever. He is still a modalist. You didn't show me to be wrong at all.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited

Paul H: Potter's House belief statement on God: "There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." The language of modalism.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr