How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps - by Jesse Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

There is a air of smug condescension in this article unbefitting a minister of the Gospel. We have numbered each instance. 

And we would ask, why would we need to become Calvinists? The author presents this as if he is seeking converts. But he never says why it's important or even relevant. This is important. What is the practical use of Calvinism? It changes no obligation to lead a holy life, to be a light, to serve one another, to be generous, to worship, or to grow in maturity of faith. None of these things are impacted by Calvinism. 

Further, the author doesn't quote a single Scripture. Not even a syllable.

Worst of all, the author doesn't do what the title promises. He doesn't actually explain how to become a Calvinist, let alone why one should want to.

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

Why It Matters That Jesus Was and Still Is Human - by Dane C. Ortlund

Found here. Our comments in bold. 

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

We discuss this issue in depth here.

This "Bible teacher" plows through almost 1300 words without quoting single syllable of Scripture. Not one. He can quote theologians, but not the Bible. How can a Bible teaching not contain the Bible?

One should think that the author would consider what the Bible actually says, like

1Co. 15:50-54 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed — 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” [Isaiah 25:8]

This passage would lead us to ask, did Jesus get raised in the same manner? And:

Jn. 20:25-28 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.” 26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” 28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus clearly presents Himself to Thomas as human to prove He indeed rose from the dead bodily. So, how about this one:

Jn. 20:17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father.

This mysterious verse implies that Jesus' status was such that something needed to happen, which would happen once He ascended to the Father. 

Now for a verse that appeals to Jesus' humanity:

He. 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are — yet was without sin.

The writer of Hebrews describes Christ's nature to reinforce the idea that Jesus is just like us. But then, the Bible tells us we shall be like Him:

1Jn. 3:2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

This suggests that Jesus is in a state that we have yet to attain. And, it will be a revelation to us. But even then, there will be a final change in heaven:

1Co. 15:28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Once again something about the status of Jesus changes. This mysterious verse leaves us with more questions that the Bible doesn't answer. 

Last verses:

Re. 1:13 and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man”, [Daniel 7:13] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash round his chest. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters.

Re. 4:3 And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald, encircled the throne.

Re. 5:6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne...

Re. 19:11-13 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no-one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

John the Revelator describes Jesus in several different ways. We would therefore be reluctant to agree to the idea that His unchanged human status, though now immortal, was carried into heaven. Rather, it seems like He possesses some sort of glorified human body, which will be what we receive as well. But of course, we can only speculate.

Now, notice we have taken the time to actually quote relevant Scriptures, which opens up rich topics of discussion. We would have expected no less from the author.

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

The Great Tribulation: Back to the Future, Part 5 - by Clint Archer

Found here. Our comments in bold.

We previously commented on part four here. Part six and seven are here.

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

The author quotes a bunch of Scripture, which gladdens our heart. It is so rare an event among so-called Bible teachers. 

But the problem is, the author fills in the gaps with his interpretations and speculations. He gives us no reason at all to believe or accept those interpretations and speculations. And in fact, they make no sense. It's like he made them up.

It's like a puzzle where the person is shoving pieces into place whether or not they fit. The author has a template, and all the evidence shall be made to fit, whether it does or not.

The worst thing is, in the end none of it is profitable. None of it applies to living a holy life. None of it contributes to worship, service, or evangelism. It's all empty, without meaning or spiritual profit.

Nothing here makes a lick of difference to the day-to-day life of a Christian.

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

Letter to the editor: Inflation can't be blamed on Biden, Democrats Jack Kligerman

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Here is a leftist attempting to explain economics. It should be no surprise that he fails. 

Of particular note is the letter writer's total inability to mention government in any way, except when it comes to Trump.

And by the way, only government can cause inflation. Period.

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

You Need Someone Else’s Armor - by Ethan Wormell

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We are in agreement with the author's basic premise, that we should operate in God's power and  not rely on our own strength. However, we think that the author doesn't completely explain the nature of the armor of God.

David could not wear the armor Saul supplied to him (1Sa. 17:38). David instead selected the weaponry that was familiar - his own. Using someone else's armor would have probably ensured his defeat.

God has equipped each of us uniquely, and we should not think we can imitate the techniques of successful ministries and pastors and expect the same results. The worst expression of this is to create a formula based on previous success as if the formula is the vehicle to success. These formulas become traditions and even doctrines. Whole denominations have been built around techniques and habitual practices.

The principle we would like to deduce is that we do not use what works, we use what God has given us. God gifts us uniquely, with spiritual gifts, abilities, and talents that perfectly suit His work in us. 

By extension, this would suggest that the armor of God in Ephesians 6 is not generic, but uniquely suited for each individual Christian. The armor is fitted for us and ready to go. Our duty is to put on that armor God has prepared, for only we can don the armor specifically designed for us. 

Our second point is to note that the author tells us that we should put on faith in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ who gave us his own righteousness to wear. This is a small quibble, perhaps, but we don't think Jesus wants us to put on His righteousness to wear. 

This righteousness is by faith:

Ro. 3:21-22 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. 

Ro. 4:24 ...but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness — for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

There is no verse that tells us to put on or to wear righteousness.

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

You Must Be Converted {Lord’s Day 33} - BY William Boekestein

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Jesus told Nicodemus, 

Jn. 3:7 You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.’

The author's title says, "You Must Be Converted." He uses Jesus' language but substitutes a different word. This is a bit of dishonesty. 

In fact, the author will use the word "conversion"/"converted" 12 times, but the Bible uses the word  (epistrophé, to turn about) only once:

Ac. 15:3 The church sent them on their way, and as they travelled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted.

That word is related to epistrephó (to turn, to return), which is used 36 times. Most often, this word is used to describe changing course. This can be a vessel changing course, a person turning around, or occasionally, people turning to God. 

Another word, strephó, means to turn, but mostly to change direction. It can also refer to turning to God:

Mt. 18:3 And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

This implies repentance, but in actual fact that when used of Christians, these Greek words simply mean the action of turning (to God), without the mechanism being described.

Repentance is a part of that mechanism. "Repent" is metanoeó, change my mind, change the inner man:

Mt. 4:17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”

To repent only means to change, but does not describe what to change to. Thus, the command to be Born Again, another part of the mechanism. That is the New Man, which the author adequately describes. 

When we repented and believed, we first died to several things:

• The bondage of the law (Ro. 7:6)
• Hostility to God (Ro. 8:7)
• deadness in transgressions (Ep. 2:5)
• confidence in the flesh (Ph. 3:3)

Our fleshly nature was circumcised from us, and we were buried and raised;

Col. 2:11-13 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ.

Paul clearly states that the sinful nature has been put off. But we need to align ourselves with this reality. The new birth ("...alive in Christ") begins the process of aligning: 

Ro. 8:12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation — but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it.

Ro. 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. 

Ro. 13:14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

Col. 3:5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.

This can only occur by the leading and empowerment of the Holy Spirit:

Ro. 8:14 ...because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 

2Co. 3:8 ...will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?

2Ti. 1:7 For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline.

Ga. 3:3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 

Ga. 5:25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.

None of this describes conversion as the author presents it. To us, conversion implies an action in response to pressure. A convert is someone who is persuaded to join up after being presented with sufficient reason to change.

"Born again" implies none of this. It's a new start, a supernatural work, an abandonment of the old life in order to embrace the new. It's identity, transformation, something completely different from the previous thing.

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

A Letter to Christian Supporters of Trump - By Carol Wolman, MD

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is a leftist and a Trump-hater. She leads with her supposed Christianity, but that is simply a smokescreen. Her Christianity is always employed in the service of her leftism. She's a leftist first, and a Christian second, or maybe third, or...

As such, we should be on the lookout for

• twisted Scriptures
• Leftist talking points
• reinterpreted doctrine, and 
• the use of the Bible to justify leftist political philosophy

We will find that everything contained in her article is boilerplate leftist rhetoric, dressed up in religion. As such, there are really no surprises here. We shall asterisk each talking point, but our comments will not be added. It is a waste of time to refute these time and time again, only to have them resurface as if nothing previously happened.

And we should note that although the author wants to attack Trump, she spends plenty of verbiage attacking you. You are stupid, a hypocrite, and greedy; you hate the poor, and you are gullible. This is how she treats her fellow Christians.

And, she manages to do all of this in less than 300 words (omitting Bible quotes).

But there is one astonishing claim the author makes at the end, that Trump is the antichrist. Not much more needs to be said.

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

A camel through the eye of the needle - what did Jesus mean?

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.

Polemics’ Threefold Display Of Love - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We find many of these self-styled "discernment ministers," whom we have deemed the Doctrinal Police, to be consumed with the latest thing about this false teacher or that false teacher. They consider it their duty to point out their flaws and errors, usually expressed in hyperbolic terms with breathless urgency. We have posted numerous critiques of them in these pages. Not only do we examine their fallacious arguments, but we also address their insulting language and egregious name calling.

One of their most pointed claims is that false teachers are, well, false. That is, through and through they are false. Not saved, not entitled to grace, respectful correction (Tit. 3:10), or the restoration prescribed in the Bible (Ga. 6:1). Not even entitled to our prayers! That is, false teachers are despicable wolves, liars and deceivers, even beyond redemption.

Thus we note that the ire of the Doctrinal Police exceeds the level of mere doctrinal disagreement. Merely setting the biblical record straight is not sufficient, though ironically they rarely even do that. No, those who come into their sights deserve only mocking, derision, and attack.

Our complaint is not that the "Doctrinal Police" are defending the truth, it's that they tend to view even the smallest doctrinal difference as false teaching. Perfect doctrine is the highest goal for them, and any deviation is false teaching, and by inference, is a matter of salvation.

The doctrinal hairsplitting gets to ridiculous levels, which means for them that the category of false teachers is extremely large. This has the effect of branding every sort of doctrinal deviation as "them," which means they are not "us."

This is cultic thinking.

Here is an example of a discernment ministry critiquing an unfortunate woman:

• hideously ugly
• post-menopausal woman 
• bizarre wardrobe choices
• a penchant for cackling
• no personal charisma
• a face that scares children
• a voice that sounds like nails down a chalkboard
• pugnacious
• unladylike
• uglier on the inside than she is on the outside
• the personality of a Roomba 
•  the personal charisma of fetid corpse
• unpleasant and evil woman

This is simply unchristian behavior.

They are more than happy to rate the worst Christian of the year.

Here's a self-described "discernment minister" who wants all charismatics to die: 

Might God use coronavirus to wipe the plague of charismaticism off the map and sweep these charlatans into the dustbin of history. Might God place the entire world into a quarantine against the Satanic false claims of charismaticism and innoculate (sic) us against their devilish assertions. Might God rid the world of every last one of them.

Here is someone who actually condemns someone as having committed the unforgiveable sin.

Now, these are not fringe people, they are recognized and celebrated discernment ministers.

In addition, we have noted in the past that "discernment ministers" do not like being criticized. They bristle at any suggestion that maybe they should reexamine their motives. One particularly egregious "minister" goes off on her critic for the critic's simple suggestion that she examine her attitude. 

This lack of self-awareness is pretty common. Which in itself is interesting, because one on hand they continually trumpet the nobility of their activities, but on the other hand are completely oblivious to how they come across, and hostile to the possibility that they may be making mistakes.

So, the author of today's article makes a fundamental error by isolating behavior from motivation. The writer appeals solely to his self-avowed noble motives, and simply presumes that his actions are definitionally an expression of love. 

Thus the discernment behavior (no matter how hurtful or clumsy) means love.  

So we would ask the author the obvious: Can a person point out biblical error and yet be unloving? Can a person deal poorly with their discernment? Can a person forget that the one he is criticizing is a soul for whom Christ died? The answers are obviously yes. 

Indeed, the author concedes that some "discernment ministers" are indeed unloving: Admittedly there are some who for love of controversy and isolation partake in the field of polemics to satisfy their blood lust for argumentation. The author attempts to disarm this by stating, However, it is an unbiblical character to assume all men who pursue this field of ministry are unloving, ungracious bloodthirsty beasts. 

This is dishonest. It should be obvious to even a casual observer that those who criticize discernment ministers are criticizing the former and not the latter. There are a lot of bad actors in the discernment arena, and they should be subject to scrutiny. No one thinks it is "all men." 

He then states, It is love for God that drives a man to speak when his master is attacked. This is the matter to be demonstrated. It is not self-evident. 

Last quote: The author cites Titus 1:13 and concludes, Those who commit the sin of false teaching need sharp rebuke. Perhaps so, but this instruction to Titus is not prescriptive for any ol' person. Paul was writing to Titus to tell him how to handle issues in this particular church. 

Titus was not sitting at his computer 1000 miles away critiquing a video snippet of an errant Bible teacher. Titus was in this church. He was in authority in this church. He was directly dealing with certain rebellious people who needed correction. 

In this church.

The author writes,

Whoever engages in polemics must be rooted in sound doctrine. 

Actually, all Christians should be rooted in sound doctrine. We would think that a polemicist ought to have several other qualifications:

• Spiritual fruit
• Spiritual gifts
• A position in the Body that gives authority to speak into the situation
• Humility
• Wisdom

Lastly, the author tells us that polemics' three "displays" of love are 

• Love for God
• Love for the Church
• Love for your Enemy

Polemics is not a person, and cannot display love. A polemicist ought to have these characteristics. "I do polemics" does not mean "I am loving."

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

Bad Worship songs: Spirit Lead Me - Influence Music & Michael Ketterer

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 good 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 as many as possible of 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
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Scripture quotes or allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness

Further, a worship song should not:

1. contain lyrics that create uncertainty or cause confusion
2. be excessively metaphorical
3. be excessively repetitive
4. imply that Jesus is 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 today's song, "Spirit Lead Me." (Youtube video.) It is a well-crafted song, but it has problems.

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

How Ordinary Worship Is both Reverent and Relevant - by Stephen Spinnenweber

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author uses about 1000 words to attempt to describe worship. 

• Number of Bible verse quoted: Zero
• Number of relevant Bible verses referenced: Zero
• Number of long quotes from theologians: Three, plus one paraphrase

Thus, the author discusses worship at length, but does not tell us from the Bible anything about worship. We're not even entirely sure that he understands worship. He seems to think it's how a Sunday service is conducted. Of course, worship can happen in a Sunday service, but this is not guaranteed.

Sadly, this lack of Bible content is an all-too-common error among these so-called Bible teachers.

In addition, he uses terms like "ordinary worship," "relevant," "doxological," and "reverent," but does not explain them. 

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

The Pastoral Epistles - Were Titus and Timothy pastors?

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.

Prayer Is an Act of Submission to God’s Will, Not a Means to Change His Mind - by Publisher

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

The author wrestles with the issue of God answering prayer, which we think is a good thing. It is certainly right for us to wrestle with the nature of God. He is infinitely complex, completely other, and unlike anything we can conceive of. His eternal nature, great love, and limitless power cannot be described, yet He has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind. Everything we know about God is a result of His revelation, for He could certainly have hidden Himself and no one would know of Him.

So what happens when we find tension between two concepts or attributes regarding what He has revealed about Himself, like what the author wants to explain? Can we accurately ascertain the interplay of God's unchanging nature vs. the clear statements that God chose to do something different because certain circumstances changed?

The problem is, we want to try to bring God into the framework of our understanding in terms of human behaviors and actions. We think changing one's mind is a particular manifestation of thought in a manner like humans think. Because of this we create a logical tension, because we cannot conceive of a manner of thought unlike our own. God isn't logical, He isn't subject to our systems or intellect: 

Is. 40:13-14 Who has understood the mind of the LORD, or instructed him as his counselor? 14 Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge or showed him the path of understanding?

The author will spend a good deal of time discussing ancillary issues, and he does so with biblical documentation. But regarding the key question, does God change His mind, he skips the Bible. 

He doesn't believe God changes His mind, yet he will twice concede that God may be moved by our prayers. But he doesn't explain this. If God is moved, has He then changed His mind? 

So we find the author's explanation to be inadequate for so rich a topic. He doesn't discuss any Scripture that deals with the specific issue. He could have discussed any one of the following Scriptures as a jump-off point for a substantive discussion:

Ex. 32:14 Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

Lk. 11:11-13 “Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

Ac. 11:17 who was I to think that I could oppose God?

Other Scriptures, like Ps. 106:45, Am. 7:3, Ge. 18:26, and Lk. 24:29, are also worthy of consideration.

In addition, the author makes a questionable claim: What was Jesus doing? He was submitting Himself to the sovereign will of the Father in an act of worship. We would contest the idea that the Bible teaches that Jesus essentially worshiped Himself.

Last point. The author will refer to God's "decretive" will, writing

God does not delight in the death of unrepentant sinners (Ezekiel 33:11) but he has decreed that the death of some will come to pass. The former is God’s revealed will and the latter is His hidden, or decretive will.

This is incorrect:

The Decretive Will of God is that which is God's sovereign will that we may or may not know, depending on whether or not God reveals it to us. The decretive will is God's direct will where he causes something to be, he decrees it.

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

Dr. Michael Brown Advocating to Regain the Apostate Church's False Prophetic Voice - By Anthony Wade

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

Over 1800 words (minus the opening Scripture and Dr. Brown's quotes), and Rev. Wade cannot be bothered to quote a Scripture, except for the opening one. He purports to be teaching a "devotional," but it's actually a political hit piece. 

Rev. Wade rarely explains anything. He simply denies and moves on. He is not a Bible teacher, he's a closet leftist.

We should note that we are not here to defend Dr. Brown. We are solely interested in Rev. Wade's presentation.

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

Rapture vs Second Coming: Back to the Future, Part 4 - by Clint Archer

Found here. Our comments in bold. Part five is here. Part six and seven are here.

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

This is confused thinking and bad teaching. The author makes up distinctions and categories, and from that creates a false chronology in opposition to the Scriptures. 
---------------

The problem with democracy and the Left

Introduction

Democracy at its base is simply rule by majority vote. It is historically based on the power of the common man as opposed to the rich or the nobility, and not based on the principle that all men are created equal. The power of the elite is negated by democracy because everyone votes no matter their wealth or status. All men are not created equal in a democracy because the majority can vote in whatever policy they want, even to the detriment of the minority.

And in fact, those who support democracy often do so because of the power of the majority, who of course is mostly the common man, can be used to target the monied and powerful. Thus democracy can be used as a tool to "even the playing field," at least as far as it applies to class conflict.

The Founders and Representative Government

There is, however, no intrinsic virtue in democracy. The process of democracy does not automatically yield fairness, justice, or even good policy. It is often a tool of brute force, where outcomes are forced onto society by special interests who invest lots of time and money into swaying the vote in their favor.

This "tyranny of the majority" (Alexis de Tocqueville) was held in contempt by the Founders as mob rule. Democracy fails as soon as the majority learns it can vote benefits to itself, especially if funded by redistributive taxation that punishes the rich.

The Founders were extremely suspicious of government power. They had lived under the abuses of Great Britain. They were students of history. They understood tyranny. This is why the Founders instituted a limited representative government. Such a system puts a layer between the vote of The People and the implementation of government policy. It was thought that if The People voted for their representatives, and those representatives could be voted out at the end of their terms, then the decisions of the representatives would perhaps be more circumspect.

Throwback Thursday ~ Unforbidden Fruits: 3 Ways Women MUST Lead and Teach the Church - by Michelle Lesley

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------

Ms. Lesley appears in our blog from time to time, often enough to have earned herself her own label. Invariably she teaches errantly. 

And once again she misrepresents Scripture. Though the subject passage is not in our excerpt, she does eventually manage to quote it. But that's it, no other Scriptures, which is too often the rule rather than the exception regarding these supposed Bible teachers. 

So that means that she's just riffing. She's parroting other teachers' take on the passage. Every other assertion she makes is undocumented.

We dive deeply into the issue of women in leadership here.

We are going to examine two excerpts. The first is single sentence, rife with errors. The second is regarding only a single word, not found in the Greek.

One sentence and one word, but several errors. This must be some sort of record.

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

Paul's Gospel Essentials: Atonement and Burial - by John MacArthur

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold. 

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

This is a very surprising presentation. Dr. MacArthur gets everything correct for most of his article, ably explaining, with biblical documentation, the various issues surrounding the sacrifices and the atonement. But for some reason at the end he wanders off into speculation and undocumented claims.

We will jump back in towards the end, at the point where Dr. MacArthur goes off the rails.

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

Justice For Ashli Babbitt - By Carl Petersen

Found here. Our comments in bold. 

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

The author does his best to parrot the leftist false narrative about January 6th. 

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

What Is Unconditional Election? - by Nicholas Batzig

Found here. Our comments in bold. 

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

Since we just recently commented on Ro. 9:22-25 in the context of predestination, we viewed today's article as an opportunity to build our understanding of Paul's thrust through this portion of Romans. Unfortunately, the author doesn't help.

He has an opportunity to explain the Calvinistic doctrine of Unconditional Election, but doesn't use the Bible to do so. In fact, he will not quote a single Scripture that demonstrates this doctrine. 

This is the sad state of Bible teaching in our day.

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