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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Is Limited Atonement? - R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who would Jesus slaughter? - By Rick Staggenborg, MD

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We discuss "sufficiency" here.

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold

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

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

Here's a chart from their website:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step three appears to be price and competition controls.

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

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

Hmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video link.

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Are You Righteous? - by Jacob Crouch

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toxic radio keeps fouling Bozeman's airwaves - by Stephen Maly, Guest columnist

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is troubled that conservatives have started responding to leftist vitriol with thir own milder an more polite version. But rather than telling his fellow leftists to tone down their toxic rhetoric, he wants his side to have a platform to amplify the message.

Ultimately, this article is nothing more than pointless adolescent whining. So rather than analyze this shallow and unsubstantial rant, we will paraphrase the author using " ".

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

Perspectives on predestination - by Barry Hofstetter

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This preacher wants to discuss the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. At almost 2900 words one would think he has ample opportunity to thoroughly explain it, from the Bible. But only one Scripture is quoted or even mentioned.

He will wander through various points, not documenting any of them, and ultimately conclude that predestination is a great comfort and blessing because we know we are secure. But how does he know he is among those God has predestined? Well, he doesn't. 

We wonder why this preacher even bothered. He doesn't tell us anything other than an opinion. He speculates, dodges, and then tells us to trust God even though the Bible really doesn't give a satisfactory explanation. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Why are we so polarized? Why is democracy is such peril? - by Robert Reich

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

Dr. Reich once again provides his contribution to The Narrative. The Narrative is the daily marching orders from Central command, the Leftist talking points and bumper sticker slogans promulgated all over the media landscape. The Narrative isn't about the truth, racism, sexism, fairness, free speech, or democracy. It's designed for one thing: To advance the Agenda. Its sole purpose is further the Leftist goal of replacing The System. That's The Agenda, to dismantle society and remake it into their vision. 

So Dr. Reich issues the typical boilerplate complaints about eeevil corporations and eeevil capitalism, while bemoaning the loss of democracy. Whose fault is it that society is polarized? Eeevil corporations. Why is democracy suffering? Eeevil capitalism. Why are people polarized? Eeeevil oligarchs and authoritarians, of course. 

If all this seems like a non sequitur, it is. If you notice that Dr. Reich is a one-note samba, kudos. If you think that people like Dr. Reich completely overlook their own role in polarization, go to the head of the class. You know what we mean: Nazi, fascist, hater, misogynist, science denier, homophobe, racist... the list goes on and on, repeated ad nauseum. Leftists never miss an opportunity to denigrate, deplatform, demonetize, and destroy the livelihood and reputation of someone who doesn't toe the Leftist line. It's a way of life for them.

Apparently Dr. Reich is unaware of the vitriol the spews from the mouths of leftists. But more likely, he knows about it, embraces it, and recognizes its utility to neuter his political opponents and advance The Agenda. 

Which means he doesn't care about polarization except to the extent it is useful. In fact, he wants more of it. The Left wants to foment discontent among the Proletariat in order to overthrow the Bourgeois. This is the long-standing goal of the Socialist Left. 

And Dr. Reich is one of them.

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

State of theology survey - by Ligonier.org

State of theology survey. Our comments in bold.

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

Ligonier is a Calvinistic website, and their survey unfortunately reflects this bias. Although most questions are about generic theology, some of them are actually testing peoples' attitudes about Calvinism.

We are a little surprised that these largely unimportant doctrines would be a matter worthy of including in a theology survey.

In our blog we have discussed Calvinism at length.

Here are  those questions.

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

The True Gift of Discernment Humbly Displays the Fruit of the Spirit - by Randy Alcorn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a pretty good article regarding an issue dear to our heart. 

Like the author, we have frequently found that those who have (or claim to have) the gift of discernment are a little too arrogant and prideful for our taste. In this blog we have deemed such people to be the Doctrinal Police. In addition, those who go further to attack or demean their theological opponents, displaying little or no fruit of the Spirit, are labeled with an additional tag  Scorched Earth Discernment.

However, our praise for the author comes with one caveat. The author, likely because he's a cessationist, quotes the major discernment verse, “the ability to distinguish between spirits” (1 Corinthians 12:10) but he defines it incorrectly. His definition is "distinguishing between what’s good and evil" which he says "comes from careful study of the Word and consultation with wise brothers and sisters in Christ." This definition of discernment, "distinguishing between what’s good and evil," is actually lifted from a different Bible verse, Hebrews 5:14:

He. 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

Hebrews 5:14 is is also a discernment verse, but 1 Corinthians 12:10 and Hebrews 5:14 are really discussing different things. They both contain the same Greek word for "discernment." That word is diakrisis, which means a thorough judgment, i.e. a discernment (conclusion) which distinguishes "look-alikes," i.e. things that appear to be the same. 

Though the same word is being used the contexts are different.

The writer of Hebrews was explaining the need for gaining a growing understanding of righteousness and the elementary truths of the Gospel so as to avoid being taken in by false doctrine and false teachers. That is the point of this verse.

However, Paul was describing the spiritual gift. Discernment, like all spiritual gifts, is a supernatural empowerment, an ability given by the Holy Spirit. It comes as a gift, not by constant training. It is supernatural insight into the spiritual realm for the purpose of determining what spirit is involved in a situation. 

We also find this idea, the discerning of the spiritual realm, presented by the Apostle John: 

1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

It is interesting that John's exhortation overlaps with both Hebrews 5:14 and 1 Corinthians 12:10 in the sense that a "false prophet" can be actually discerned both intellectually (the false prophet speaks falsely) as well as spiritually (the false prophet carries a false spirit). 

We realize this is an overly detailed explanation, but our point is the supernatural element of discernment must not be overlooked.

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

Does God Change His Mind? - by James Dolezal

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is an interesting topic, because there is what appears to be a conflict of information. The Bible presents two ideas that seem to contradict. As an eternal, perfect, all-powerful and all-knowing being, how can it be possible that God would change His mind? Yet as the author admits, there are Scriptures that suggest that God does indeed change his mind.

The author will focus on certain attributes of God, but without explanation will tell us these attributes exclude the possibility of Him changing His mind. Thus His immutability, His predetermined plan, His omniscience, and His perfection require that He doesn't change His mind. But these statements beg the question, why do these attributes exclude this?

And, the author wants God's divine characteristics to be pre-eminent over God Himself as if He were at the mercy of them. He tells us God is immutable, for example, which means He is unable to take another course if He chooses. Because immutability. 

Further, we should mention that the idea of God not changing His mind is built upon two statements in two verses, (1 Sam. 15:29 and Num. 23:19.) The first is about the judgment of King Saul, and the second is Balaam's statement to Balak about Balak's desire to curse Israel. We might suggest that these situations were possibly more geared toward the finality and certainty of God's purpose in these contexts rather than being an all-encompassing truth statement.

Another thing to consider is because God's nature is not like a man, His mind is also not like a man's, so that the way He thinks about things is not like a man. Thus, He does not act in the manner of man, He "...does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, [He's nothing like a man] that he should change his mind [like a man would].”

We should resist the notion that our understanding of how the mind of man works is the same as how the mind of God would work.

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

The failure of emotional religion - by Norman H. Street

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is an astounding 4200 words, where the author wanders off on tangents, goes on extended expositions of unrelated topics, repeats himself over and over, and quotes Bible verses about things not under discussion (and often, leaves them uncited so that we don't even know where to find them).

There were times we had no idea what he was talking about, and other times we wondered why he was discussing a verse or idea at all. 

Yet he somehow managed to tie everything he discussed, no matter how far afield, back into emotion being a grave problem. 

But. Emotion isn't the problem. He writes: 

"So, while I am for emotion, I am against emotionalism."

Yet he uses the word "emotion" and "emotional" 30 times, and "emotionalism" but once.

Wow.

This is a complete nightmare. We must deem it Bad Bible Teaching.

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

DOES GOD SPEAK TODAY APART FROM THE BIBLE? - by R. Fowler White

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author manages to quote four Scriptures in 4400 words, but none of those Scriptures come to bear on the topic presented in the title. Yet he insists his interlocuters demonstrate their doctrines from the Bible, but he himself does not do this.

The author is a cessationist, which means he believes the "supernatural" gifts of the Spirit ceased after the death of the last apostle and the completion of the Canon of Scripture. He does not discuss this at all. Instead he challenges two ideas:

• contemporary prophecy is imperfect 
• weighing prophecy is discerning the elements of a prophecy

He thinks that all prophecy must be perfect, but does not discuss what happens if perfect prophecy is actually delivered. He also does not contemplate the idea that a prophet who passes the test of being weighed is actually a prophet.

He will then close with some assertions about the sufficiency of Scripture and how the closed canon excludes contemporary prophecy, but doesn't really tell us why.

This is a long and confusing article. We must consider it Bad Bible Teaching.

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

5 Things You Should Know About Justification - by William C. Godfrey

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

One might think that if an author is going to explain what we should know about a thing, that thing should first be defined. Tell us what the word means. But the author waits for 683 words out of 950 to actually define justification.

He does provide us with a correct definition, thankfully. He writes: "Justification is God’s once for all declaration that we are righteous in His sight." The Greek word is dikaioó, to show to be righteous, declare righteous. So he's quite correct.

But even though he does eventually define the word he makes several missteps along the way, which ultimately negates his definition. These missteps come from a Reformed/Calvinistic viewpoint, which regards the interaction between the sinner and the savior as a legal transaction, or as some sort of exchange. But in fact, it is a sacrificial transaction, not a legal one. 

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

If God is Good, Omnipotent, and Sovereign, Where Does Evil Come From? - by Phil Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

If you came here to discover the author's biblical explanation of where evil comes from, you will be disappointed. The author never tells us. We can't imagine a poorer explanation of the topic. 

The author is here to defend his Calvinism. He assumes his premise, restates it, proves points not under discussion, and in the end simply offers repeated bare denials.

This is Bad Bible Teaching. There's no other way to explain it. 

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