Divine Impassibility - by Kevin DeYoung

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Pay close attention, dear reader, as you consider the author's presentation. It comes across as thoughtful, superficially scholarly, and biblical. But there's no substance. It empty of explanations, it contains no specifics, and the logic is faulty.

The author quotes a statement of faith and the lyrics to a hymn. Not a single word from the Bible. He explains nothing, edifies no one, and does nothing to add to biblical understanding.

This is truly Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Should We Invite the Holy Spirit? - by lovesickscribe

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The Holy Spirit is certainly the most misunderstood and misrepresented member of the trinity. The author believes that the born again event is the only thing the Holy Spirit does and takes issue with the idea that He might have the ability intensify His presence. However, she abandons biblical documentation for her key assertions.

Does the glory and power of God vary at times? Absolutely:

1 Cor. 5:4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present...

This clearly implies that His manifest power is not always "present." Also by implication, there is action that can be taken to change this.

It is certainly true that various aspects of God's nature and revelation are not always as discernable. Though He never changes, the way He interacts with creation varies in power:

Ac. 19:20 In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.

We would say that we ought to arrange our lives and our churches to please the Spirit:

Ga. 6:8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

Perhaps then we might experience the presence of the Lord.

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

How Democrats Lost the Election - By Marcelo Brazzi

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is an agitprop-loaded screed that makes several false claims, repeats bumper-sticker leftist slogans, and basically just reinforces The Narrative in pursuit of The Agenda.

We slogged through a good portion of this, refuting each point as raised, until we could stand no more. And really, we're wasting our time anyway since the author or one of his comrades with come back tomorrow with exactly the same talking points as if today never happened.

Remember, the Democrats lost using these very same talking points. But because they have no original ideas or anything at all that requires introspection, well, they'll continue with their failed strategy.

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

Trump and His Crypto Cronies Have Big Plans. Be Afraid - by Sam Gustin

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author lets loose with every Leftist talking point available to him, irrespective of truth or even reality. Of course this is the methodology of the Left, to simply overwhelm with repeated, rapid-fire factoids. 

We have deemed this The Narrative. The Narrative is the verbiage distributed to media outlets and Leftist apologists by Central Command, used to attack opponents and further The Agenda. The Agenda is the plan by which The System is disassembled and replaced.

So the author is simply doing his duty to promulgate the daily bumper sticker slogans and incendiary rhetoric required to keep to keep the average American propagandized and uninformed.

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

Discipleship in the Reformed World - by Ryan Denton

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is actually a rather good article on the need for discipleship. The author quotes Scripture, approaches the issue from various angles, and overall provides a good exhortation.

But because the author is "Reformed," i.e., he holds various doctrines peculiar to the Reformed perspective including Calvinism, he makes some curious statements. Twice he mentions Calvin and the regulative principle of worship, which would suggest that he considers these two things to of primary importance when it comes to discipleship. Let's first explain, then analyze.

John Calvin: He was a pastor and theologian in the 1500s, and is best known for developing what has come to be known as the Doctrines of Grace. These are roughly explained by the acronym TULIP:

• Total Depravity
• Unconditional Election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible Grace
• Perseverance of the Saints

We have written extensively on these, and have concluded that they are entirely useless. Knowing these doctrines adds nothing to informing one's daily Christian obligations. They do not come to bear on any matter regarding getting saved, walking out a life of obedience, service, or generosity. They are mere intellectual exercises, often resulting in division between Christians, churches, and denominations.

We have no use for Calvinism.

Regulative principle of worship: Calvin provided the most succinct definition: “God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his Word.” This actually has nothing to do with worship per se, it actually is a principle that applies to how a Sunday service is conducted. The whole premise is that there is a "proper" way to conduct a corporate worship service, and that we cannot do so outside of the specific commands of the Bible.

In actual fact, the forms and practices of a traditional Reformed church service is the true benchmark. This for example means a contemporary worship service with a band and rock songs violates the regulative principle of worship.

Now, we concede the author does mention a number of things about discipleship that are profitable, like prayer and Bible study.  But it seems like he expects that at some point a convert should embrace Calvin's teachings and the regulative principle. 

There is no fruit that comes from this.

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

A day that shall live in infamy, as should Donald J. Trump - by Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The is a letter-perfect regurgitation of leftist revisionist history. Dr. Reich recites every false claim with robotic precision. We will simply note that any claim made here by Dr. Reich which has already been thoroughly documented as false will be affixed with a "Did not happen."

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

The Mailbag: “I Speak Jesus,” Charity Gayle, and How to Vet Christian Music - by Michelle Lesley

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

Ms. Lesley takes great offense at this song because it focuses on the speaking the name of Jesus. She errantly assumes that the songwriters ("NAR," don' cha know) are using Jesus' name as a magical incantation of sorts.

It is clear Ms. Lesley has never considered the Name of Jesus as Scripture presents it. Because of her doctrinal biases it's not a teaching she's acquainted with, though the Bible talks about the Name of Jesus and its importance and preeminence repeatedly. She reacts to a Scriptural idea that is new to her by plugging her ears and screaming "heresy!" 

Ms. Lesley asks some questions she thinks cannot be satisfactorily answered. We shall do so.

• What do you mean by that?

To "speak Jesus" is when those who are "in Christ" [Gal. 3:26] appeal to and use His name and authority, particularly in prayer.

• Where, in context and rightly handled, does the Bible teach us to do that?

Ac. 3:16 By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see.

Ac. 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

 

Col. 3:17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

 

1Co. 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another...

 

Ac. 4:10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.

 

Ja. 5:14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.

 

Ep. 5:20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Ac. 16:18 She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so troubled that he turned round and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!” At that moment the spirit left her.

Ph. 2:9-10 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth...

Ac. 4:30 Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 

 

Rom. 10:13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” [Joel 2:32]

• What is that supposed to accomplish, or what will the result of that be so I can watch for it?

See above Scriptures for examples.

The name of Jesus is powerful when used by those who belong to him, and dangerous to those who do not [Acts 19:11-19].

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

"Eat the meat and spit out the bones" meme

 Found on some Calvinist/reformist website somewhere:

It seems like a doctrinally sound teacher is simply a teacher the memewriter likes. Or maybe it's a sliding scale. A teacher can get one or two things wrong and that's fine. Maybe that's a "rounding error" for the 100% standard. So how much error is too much? Unknown. 

Letter to the editor: Trump inauguration will make a mockery of Constitution - by Kenneth Allen

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

It's rather astonishing to us that the Left persists in their narrative no matter what. They get refuted every day but this does not dissuade them. They are proved wrong at every point but the very next day they repeat the same old bumper sticker slogans. Even though they lost the election using this blather they keep it up. Trump still must be blasted as an authoritarian, a fascist, a threat to democracy... and, an insurrectionist.

This is The Narrative, the daily talking points regularly disseminated to the faithful, the sole purpose of which is to further The Agenda. The Agenda is the overthrow of The System to make way for the people's utopia, Socialism.

So, Kenneth Allen's letter to the editor appeared in the local paper, in service to The Narrative. He is gravely concerned about supposed violations of the Constitution, you know, the document written by old white guys, misogynists, and imperialistic xenophobes. 

In actual fact the author doesn't care a bit about the Constitution, except for the momentary value it has to impugn Trump. He even quotes it, which likely puts his Google search into the FBI terrorist database. 

The author is correct that the Constitution forbids those who have engaged in insurrection to hold federal office. In the author's mind this disqualifies Trump. Because The Narrative. 

However, insurrection is a crime. So first, there must be an insurrection, and there wasn't. Second, one must be tried and convicted of insurrection to be an insurrectionist. Didn't happen. 

For a long time we thought the Left was simply being cynical, tossing around their accusations but not really believing them. It seems, though, that the author really believes this claptrap. A sobering situation, indeed.

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

UPDATE – Research: New Apostolic Reformation - by Marsha West

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

We've had some exposure to the "NAR," so we're familiar with many of their doctrines, practices, and ideas. So as we read the below article we thought the author was discussing some other group. Very little of what's written here aligns with our experience.

It seems the author simply lumps together all charismatics, pentecostals, and continuationists into the "NAR." This is lazy, because a great many charismatics don't believe in modern-day apostles, the majority of continuationists are not dominionists, and most pentecostals don't go to "NAR" connected churches.

In fact, the moniker "NAR" is nearly useless, except to use a a bludgeon against those with whom the author disagrees. This is not to suggest that various charismatic churches are blameless, for they make mistakes, teach error, and engage in excesses just like any other church. 

Including conservative, cessationist churches.

Further, the author only manages to quote three partial Scriptures. We must label this Bad Bible Teaching.

Lastly, we don't intend to defend the "NAR," we are here to examine the author's presentation.

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

1967 Pontiac Lemans #2 - budget build - Episode eight - repair tail light panel, hood ***updated 1/13/25

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 and rocker, here.

Episode six, fenders, inner fenders, here.

Episode seven, the doors, found here.

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

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

There are parts on the car that simply need replacing. The tail light panel is one such part. It was hit in two places, it's got rust, and it's misshapened. But, it's not available as a reproduction. 
 

That means I must fix it.

Experiencing God – A Critical Review - by Douglas Beaumont

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is a cessationist; he believes that God does not speak today, that miracles ceased in the first century, and that the Bible alone is all that is available to Christians. 

In this long article (3400 words) the author quotes but a snippet of one Bible verse, 15 words. For this we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

We should note, we are not here to defend Blackaby or his book. We want to examine the author's extraordinarily faulty and ironic presentation.

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

Sean McDowell Promotes Feminist David and Bathsheba Narrative - the Evangelical Dark Web

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

It's somewhat puzzling that supposed theologians and Bible teachers are arguing about what sin David committed with Bathsheba. Not only is it a waste of time, it divides Christians into camps about things that really don't matter.

The Evangelical Dark Web makes a big to-do about feminist infiltration of liberal doctrine, which apparently includes the idea that David raped Bathsheba. So David took another man's wife, impregnated her, and sent the man out to a dangerous place to be killed. But for some reason it's important for us to know that David did not rape her. Hmm.

Is it possible to consider that David may have raped her without it invoking feminism? Certainly. The problem is that we try to ascertain the dynamics of a foreign culture from thousands of years ago according to our contemporary understanding. This is a mistake.

Let's look at the narrative and make note of a few points:

2Sa. 11:1 In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king’s men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem.

It's a detail many miss. David was supposed to be away with his army, but he stayed home. This really is his first sin. David set himself up to neglect his kingly duties and have his attention go elsewhere. And indeed, elsewhere it went:

2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “Isn’t this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?” 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. Then she went back home. 5 The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, “I am pregnant.”

Notice that the text does not describe Bathsheba as bathing on the roof. David was on the roof and saw her. David acted on his lust and sent messengers to get her. "Get" is the Hebrew word laqach, which means to take, acquire, or seize. Whether or not she went willingly is beside the point. David was king and whatever he wanted he got. That's the reality. So he sent men to take her.

Bathsheba is often presented as a willing participant at best, or a temptress at worst. We don't know either of these things from the Bible, it's simply speculation. In fact, it's difficult to know her motives. We do know that she did not revile her husband. In fact, she probably loved him:

26 When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. 

Next, in chapter 12 we read about the prophet Nathan confronting David about his sin. Nathan makes an analogy:

2Sa. 12:4 “Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took (laqach) the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.” 

So David took what was not his, and even made sure that he covered up his evil deed by committing another evil deed:

9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took (laqach) his wife to be your own.

David did a grievous thing, so much so that judgment came down upon him and his household. This was no small thing he did:

2Sa. 12:11 “This is what the LORD says: `Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’“

For all that David did here, it seems foolish to argue about if he raped Bathsheba.

Lastly, we do not intend to defend McDowell. We are here simply to analyze the author's completely scriptureless presentation. 

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

Are Catholics Christian? - by Stephen Kneale

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

The author asks the wrong question but eventually gets to the right answer, then reverses course at the end. The correct question is, what doctrines must one believe in order to be saved? Or maybe, if you believe all the right doctrines, are you saved? Or, if you are in the right denomination, are you saved?

There is a marked tendency among Christians of all stripes to characterize salvation in relation to what doctrines a church believes. This is an abiblical concept. Certainly it is true that we need to hold to sound doctrine, but doctrine doesn't save us. There is no set of doctrines we can point to and say that people are saved or not saved based on their adherence to those doctrines.

In addition, where you go to church doesn't speak to salvation. Even belonging to a cult is a separate issue from salvation. The author eventually lands on this right answer:

Christians are simply those who are going to Heaven. Which means there may be people who believe otherwise errant things who nevertheless believe the biblical gospel and will be going to Heaven. 

There is one substantial factor missing in the author's thinking, the Holy Spirit. He writes, 

if they have somehow come to the conclusion that their salvation is, indeed, exclusively by faith in Christ alone – errant as the denomination may be – that individual can rightly be called a Christian.

A person does not "come to the conclusion" to become a Christian. No intellectual process is involved. A person doesn't hear or read the Gospel then based on the pros and cons reach a "conclusion." Rather, the Holy Spirit is the agent by whom we are saved: 

Jn. 3:6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

Oddly, after expending hundreds of words, he swerves away from the correct answer at the end, asserting:

 

Anyone who either doesn’t believe on the Lord Jesus Christ or who says certain works are necessary in addition to the work of Jesus, will not be saved. That is, will not go to Heaven. Which is to say, is not a Christian. When understood that way, Catholic are not Christians.

Hmm. So there is a doctrine that is required for salvation. Salvation means one cannot believe that works play a role in salvation. This of course is false.

Lastly we note that the author neither quotes nor references the Bible. He does use the word "Bible" a couple of times, but there is no Bible teaching or principle contained in this article. Which means everything here is mere speculation and intellectual posturing.

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Rich's proverbs, book nine - updated 1/10/24

Book nine here.

Book eight here.

Book seven here.

Book six here.

Book five here.

Book four here.

Book three here.

Book two here.

Book one here.

This is a continuation of my practice to take notes on what I prayed.

Chapter One

1. Rev 13:8 ...the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

The cross is much more than the point in time when you gave your life for us. Jesus, your sacrifice transcends eternity. Your salvation plan was already accomplished before you even created anything.

Wow. Our view of you is so limited. Open our understanding to know your ways.

Did the Son of God Leave Heaven When He Came to Earth? - by Kevin DeYoung

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

We've examined several of this author's articles and are beginning to wonder if he's a competent Bible teacher. 

Today's article is more than 1100 words (we subtracted the author's extended quotes of Calvin), but there are only 20 words quoted from the Bible, none of which come to bear on the author's thesis.

Adding back the two extended quotes from Calvin (142 words), and then accounting for quotes from and references to other authors (E.S. Elliot, K. J. Drake, Andrew McGinnis, Cyril of Alexandria), various groups (Lutheran and Reformed theologians), and statements of faith (the Nicene Creed, something "Chalcedonian," the Heidelberg Catechism), as well as appealing to arcane doctrinal ideas like Calvinisticum.... well, the amount of actual Bible teaching contained here approaches zero.

Further, it seems the author derived at least some of his presentation from Wikipedia, but Wikipedia does it better.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Chosen - by Mike Ratliff

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

Mr. Ratliff engages in a good bit of contorting to bolster his Calvinistic false doctrine, the predestination of the Elect. He looks at the syntax, tenses, and grammar of two passages. However, he misses the forest for the trees. All of his analysis of the Greek words might be true and accurate, but he misses the context for all this. These two passages are not about our predestination. 

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

1967 Pontiac Lemans #2 - budget build - Episode seven - the doors ***updated 1/8/25

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 and rocker, here.

Episode six, fenders, inner fenders, here.

Episode seven, the doors, found here.

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

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

It's now time to turn to the more detailed bodywork. I've actually been a hammering fool already, especially regarding the driver's quarter and the passenger fender, both of which needed extensive work.

The third problem area is the doors. 

Man’s Enduring Guilt - by John MacArthur

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Paul could have made his argument many ways without having a New Testament at his disposal. Indeed, in the course of his epistle to the Romans, he returns to this point and sometimes brings up additional arguments that prove the sinfulness of all humanity. For example, in Romans 5:14, he points out that “death reigned from Adam until Moses” even before there was a written law defining what sin was. He argues that sin must be universal because death is universal. Sin is, after all, the whole reason people die. “Death [entered the world] through sin” (Romans 5:12). “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). And everyone dies. That 100 percent statistic furnishes undeniable proof that everyone is a sinner. - Dr. John MacArthur

Dr. MacArthur almost gets it. But it isn't that we are all sinners, even though that's true. It's that we are all dead. That's what we inherited. We have discussed this in the context of the idea of original sin, and our examination led us to some surprising conclusions. 

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

What Is Total Depravity? - by Darrell B. Harrison

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author tells us nothing about a supposedly core idea or how it might be relevant. In fact, the author will tell us that we are not actually "totally" depraved, because "total" does not mean "utter." And, he wants "depravity" to be understood as "inability." 

Well. That's helpful.

Further, the author references a few Bible verses but apparently is "utterly" unable to quote it. The fact that these supposed Bible teachers cannot or will not quote the Bible continually mystifies us.

 So it is left to us to explain what the author attempted to explain. "Total Depravity," aka "Complete Inability," is important to Calvinists because it interfaces with other parts of Reformed doctrine. Calvinists believe in predestination, that long ago God chose those who will be saved. His will is irresistible; if a person is predestined he will inexorably be saved and cannot lose his salvation.

Thus Total Depravity is required because God does everything. It's all lined out as God's will. You cannot assent to salvation or put your faith in Jesus. Or, perhaps more accurately, your participation is irrelevant because you are either chosen to be saved or you are not. You are essentially a robot. Your destiny is already determined. God will save you or He will send you to hell. Nothing you can do will change this.

Calvinists will go to the mat to defend their doctrines. What is inexplicable is why. Why is it important to know we are totally depraved (or, completely unable)? What difference does such knowledge make in our service, worship, or daily walk? How does it change our generosity, our evangelism, or any aspect of holiness?

Well, it doesn't. The doctrines of grace make absolutely no difference in any obligation or privilege we possess as Christians.

We take deep dives into various aspects of Calvinism/Reformed doctrines at this tag.

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