Theology is foundation of knowledge - by John C. Wright

Originally titled "The Ship of Theseus and the Demon of Descartes."

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

This is a reprint of a column from a few years ago, but which bears repeating. Once the Church is restored to primacy, philosophy and related arts and sciences will likewise be revived, and the shameful neglect of generations undone. 

Philosophy traditionally was divided into seven major branches:

• Epistemology: the study of knowledge. What is truth?
• Logic: the study of formal reasoning. What follows truth? Wither leads it? What conclusion must be true if a given statement is true?
• Metaphysics: the study of first principles. What precedes truth? Whence come it? What premise must be true when a given statement is true?
• Ethics: the study of virtue. What ought men do to be true?
• Natural Philosophy: the study of the visible order of creation.
• Aesthetics: the study of beauty, both in creation and created by man.
• Theology: the study of the invisible order of creation.

Theology includes the study of revealed truth, which of necessity touches all these foregoing studies. Theology alone unifies all branches of philosophy, hence is rightly called their summit, culmination, and queen.

From these seven, several further branches spring:

• Epistemology includes Empiricism, Rationalism, Revelation, and perhaps more.
• Semantics, which asks how words are used, is a handmaiden to Logic, as statements must be put in signs or words. Geometry is logic applied to figures and ratios; Arithmetic is geometry expressed as magnitudes.
• Metaphysics, the study of first principles, includes Ontology, the study of first substances.
• Ethics includes Politics, which is the art of how to live in civilization, which necessarily includes Economics, the study of the trades in goods and services.
• Natural Philosophy includes the study of the inanimate world, Astronomy and Ballistics, Geography and Geology and Meteorology, and the various elements and energies of which they are composed, and includes also naturalism, which studies the growth and decay in due season of flora and fauna, their origins and destiny, and includes the study of man, his nature and his works.
• Aesthetics, ironically, also informs Rhetoric, which is the study of the figures of pleasant and persuasive public speaking, since persuasiveness is a type of beauty.

(...)

Six Ways Zohran Mamdani Can Make New York City Affordable Again - by Kiren Gopal

Found here.
----------------

New York City is a textbook example of repeated leftist intervention into the economy. These interventions have yielded the current destitution that is NYC. Having endured decades of Left wing governance, the city is falling apart, unlivable and unaffordable. 

So what does the author propose? Even more of the same. Astonishing. 

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

Three reasons Russell Brand should not be baptising anybody - by Stephen Kneale

Found here. Out comments in bold.
------------------------

The author doesn't reference or quote a single Scripture in over 1800 words. Neither does he explain any Bible principle. He's actually writing an opinion piece, not a Bible teaching. Essentially, the author is explaining his church's traditional practice and how Russell Brand is violating that, as if Brand should conform to the author's preferences.

That's really the issue here. But Brand is not a member of the author's church or denomination, so his opinion about Brand is really irrelevant. In fact, we are gladdened by Brand's obvious passion resulting from his truly powerful salvation. So if Brand eschews dead tradition in favor of something that violates the author's sensibilities, well, we're ok with that.

Lastly, because the author neither quotes nor teaches the Bible, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Mysticism and the Authority of Scripture: Why the Word Is Enough - by Dave Jenkins

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

The author is a opposed to mysticism because it is experiential, then he is ok with experience. He sets up a number of false binary choices and wants to force us to choose one or the other. He uses conventional language but redefines certain words to suit his doctrine.

The author never actually tells us his underlying assumption, that the "supernatural" gifts of the Spirit have ceased, and that the only way God speaks today is through the Bible. This is known as cessationism, where there is no such thing as contemporary prophecy, tongues, healing, impressions, or words of knowledge (we have dealt extensively with cessationist arguments here). 

But the big problem is he that lies to us about Scripture. He misrepresents the meaning of verses to serve his agenda.

We must consider this to be Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Crowdsourcing a. 50-year Progressive vision - By Rob Kall

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

This is a mind-numbing list of Leftist pink unicorn cotton candy fairy tales. The author could have saved us a lot of time by simply telling us that he wants to overthrow the System and install Socialism. 

On one hand he wants free everything, but also wants to eliminate the wealthy, which is the source of funding this nightmare. He wants local governmental autonomy and central federal control. He wants free speech and conservatives silenced. He wants the elimination of authoritarianism, using authoritarian means.

It's a child's vision, naïve and puerile. "Everybody gets all the chocolate they want." It's a beauty queen's ambition. "I just want world peace." It's Rodney King's "why can't we all just get along?" It's touch toes, hold hands, and Kumbaya. It's John Lennon's "Imagine" playing 24-7 on a radio you can't turn off.

The author thinks that these "1001 Things To Add To a Country" can be be incrementally installed (as has been the Marxist strategy for the last 100 years), but no country or society could survive this. Even a country as large as the US would soon teeter under the weight. Besides, even though Socialists are a pretty patient group, the young upstarts will inevitably call for revolution, bloody if needed, when the Socialist Old Guard takes too long to install the Worker's Paradise.

We don't expect the reader to read all of it. We were barely able to ourselves. But we do note that the author was somehow able to miss a couple of significant things:

• Free cars
• Free weed
• Free cell phones
• Free lobster and prime rib

A little more seriously, we should notr the author mentions nothing about vacations, art, music, or athletics. Not a peep about space travel, transportation, wind farms, solar, or even any mention of electricity.

Lastly, we note the author uses the term "progressive" 29 times but never defines it. We find it odd indeed that hoary old ideas like these are "progressive" in any sense of the word. Progress implies a continual improvement and a brighter future, not looking back to dead Socialist tyrants and their ideas for totalitarianism and genocide.

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

Echoes of Jezebel: Modern Warnings from Ancient Judgments - By Elizabeth Prata

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

It's been a couple of months since we last published a critique of an Elizabeth Prata article. We do not wish to dishonor her, but sadly, we cannot recommend her as a competent Bible teacher.

In today's article she attempts to apply Ezekiel's condemnation of false prophets to contemporary women and contemporary prophecy. It's clear that she's operating from the unstated premise that there are no prophets today. It would be helpful if she actually told us this, but we are consigned to guess it.

In particular, she is against women prophets. She writes: 

God rarely bestowed prophetic ability on women. 

This is what is sticking in her craw, women prophesying. She wants OT prophecy to be the domain of men only, then extend that to our day. So because only a handful of women prophesied in the OT, this would mean women prophesying today is unbiblical. This is the conclusion she wants us to draw.

But more to the point, what does the NT say about women prophesying? This is something Ms. Prata didn't bother to address. 

Ac. 2:17 In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.

Seems pretty clear. The pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost means God's servants, men and women, will prophesy in these "last days." We are still in the "last days," so women should still be prophesying.

1Co. 11:5, 16 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head — it is just as though her head were shaved... 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice — nor do the churches of God.

Women were praying and prophesying in the Corinthian church, but they failed to cover their heads. Paul corrected this, telling them that this is the only practice of the Church. Does Ms. Prata's church embrace Paul's position? 

Sometimes when we read Ms. Prata's teaching we are mystified at the level of misinformation (or perhaps deception) at work here. We must therefore deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Dr. Martin Luther King Would Approve of Zohran Mamdani - By Dr. Lenore Daniels

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The agitprop is strong in this one, Obi-Wan. 

With nearly impenetrable prose, the author goes on and on about her caricatures, liberally employing well-worn Socialist tropes and bumper sticker slogans in a vain search for a coherent thought. 

Remember, this woman has a PhD. 

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

Covered by the blood - Rethink

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

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

Election - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Ratliff is back too soon. And once again he's here, not to explain the Bible, but to explain Calvinism. As we've discussed before, that's what Calvinists do. They will never explain the Bible unless they can expound on the virtues of Calvinism. This is a constant reiteration of Calvinistic doctrine over and over, done in a manner strikingly similar to the way political Leftists argue for their ideas.

It's truly cultish behavior.

A favorite topic of Calvinists is the idea that God chose who would be saved long ago. This is the doctrine of predestination. Those who are chosen are "the Elect." So here Mr. Ratliff will yet again explain election, which he has done many times. 

Since we have addressed these Scriptures many times before we shall try to not repeat ourselves except to spotlight the basic errors Mr. Ratliff makes.

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

If-Jesus-returns-kill-Him-again.com - Darwin Bedford

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This guy is a true believer. We're not going to respond, since the level of intellect at work here is self-evident. So just grab a cold one and sit down for a good laugh or two. Or, pity this poor soul who can barely put together a coherent thought.

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

Thoughts from a 90 year old saintly woman

I have known Jeanette for about 15 years, ever since I came to this church. She had been there for years already. She is known in the church for her memorization of Scripture. She loves to play cards with friends, and is the main door greeter for Sunday mornings, despite her increasing difficulty to stand.

It seems we are inevitably attracted to the attractive, articulate, clever, and charismatic personalities. Christians seem to gravitate to the talented and the outgoing. But one lesson I have learned from the Lord is to never underestimate or minimize the background people in the church. The awkward, the elderly, the ignored, the introverts, the weird ones, the rejects and the cast offs. No one really pays attention to them.

Like Jeanette.

There is a gold mine of wisdom, insight, and perspective in these people. But few of them have opportunity or outlet. Yet they remain faithful, year after year. So, I am so blessed that Jeanette chose to write down her thoughts and asked me to share them on my blog. I hope you are blessed as well.

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

The Cross is proof of God’s grace - by Mike Ratliff

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

Calvinists are quick to talk about Calvinism. They never teach the Bible, per se, they teach Calvinism. They explain it. Go over it over and over. They never depart from chronicling the tiniest nuance of Calvinistic doctrine.

But Calvinists never explain the Bible.

The author is a Calvinist, so he believes that long ago God chose those who would be saved. This means that since these chosen ones get saved at the exact moment God ordained, they are bystanders in the transaction. They don't make a decision to agree to salvation. They are not participants. They do nothing at all.

Further, most Calvinists will say that God ordains all of existence, that our day to day lives, events, circumstances, and decisions have already been laid out. From these ideas come a whole host of problems, like

• If God chose the saved for heaven, He must have chose to send the lost to hell
• Human choice is an elaborate illusion
• Neither the saved nor the lost have any reason to lead virtuous lives
• Life itself is fake

Now to be sure, Calvinism has developed explanations for all these problems, some of them quite elaborate, others tortured. This is what Calvinism does: It creates problems that need workarounds.

Thus the author has an undocumented presumption: Everything is pre-ordained, including salvation, everything in the salvation process is a actuated by God: Grace, forgiveness, new life, even faith. It's all from God. 

Oddly, he never demonstrates this from the Bible. 

One last thing: It's irrelevant. Whether the saved are predestined or not doesn't matter. It changes nothing. People will get saved every day. Does it matter somehow that they were chosen or not? Nope.

Calvinism is a useless intellectual exercise.

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

Contract For American Renewal 2026 - By John Rachel

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Way back in the mid 1990s a group of Republicans introduced the "Contract with America," an eight point economic plan intended to bring some sanity to the massive government budget. They were roundly mocked by the Leftist media and the Democrats at the time.

Fast-forward a few decades and now the Left has its own contract. The difference is, while the Republican contract was reform-oriented, the below "Contract for American Renewal" is more of the same thing the Left has already been implementing for 100 years. 

It's truly amazing how the Left recycles the same failed ideas day after year after decade as if this time they will finally work.

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

8 Questions About Predestination - by: Joel R. Beeke, Paul M. Smalley

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

We've spent a lot of time in this blog examining the Reformed/Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, because it seems to be the lynchpin of this branch of Christian theology. Today we review the explanation of these credentialed men to ascertain if there's reason to believe in universal predestination.

The authors do quote some Scripture, which is an all-to-rare occurrence among so-called Bible teachers. Unfortunately, they do not quote certain Bible references, and when we go to read them we find that the verses do not say what the authors said.

Therefore, we must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Spiritual Gifts Are for Service, Not Personal Fulfillment - by Matt Emadi

Found here. 

-----------

A very good article and a sober reminder that our spiritual gifts are not indicators of superior spirituality and do not entitle us to a position.

On the flip side, a savvy church leadership will endeavor to discover the spiritual gifts of their congregants, and seek to install these people in ministry as they discern it to be appropriate. Thus the church has an obligation to perform its function as well by identifying, training, and releasing people into ministry. This happens to have a side benefit of mitigating the issues the author will bring forth below.

Therefore, a healthy church is one where the leadership brings to maturity its people, and where the people embrace the discipline and eventual release into ministry within the body.

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

A Wealth Tax that Will Work - How we build a better future despite Trump and his Republican lapdogs (Part 1) - by Robert Reich

 Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich spouts the Leftist line with facility. It rolls off his word processor like so much effluent. He perfectly parrots The Agenda (the decades-long effort to overthrow The System), while pretending to embrace "equality," "democracy," and "fairness." In actual fact, the Left is actually intent on causing more and more problems, with the idea that finally people will be ready for a different system. 

That's the goal of people like Dr. Reich. And that's the purpose of his article today. So nothing you will read here is intended for telling the truth. It's for manipulation and distraction. It's to get you riled up at the horrible injustice of people having a lot of money while other people suffer and die.

That's what Dr. Reich wants you to think. Don't fall for it.

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

Crushed, Stricken, Victorious - by Robb Brunansky

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

The author is intent on inserting a life lesson into Isaiah 53, that God is trustworthy, but this is simply not found there. Nonetheless it is the author's theme, for better or worse. And as we will discover, it is definitely for the worse. Rather than teaching about the substantial prophetic imagery here and showing us the power of this passage, somehow he seems to want it to be about something else. 

Jesus had precious little to say about trust. This is the sole example:

Jn. 14:1 Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.

"Trust" here is pisteuete, which means to have faith or believe, while "trustworthy" is pistoi, which means faithful, is found here:

Lk. 16:12 And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?

It seems like the NT concept of trust is at variance with the author's understanding.

Further, the author also teaches the Reformist/Calvinist false doctrine that the Father punished Jesus for our sin. We will discuss that below.

Lastly, he writes over 1200 words, but aside from the tangential introductory Scripture only eleven words of Scripture are quoted. Astonishing. How is it possible to teach the Bible without quoting it?

We must consider this to be Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Jack Hibbs: What the Bible Really Says About the Millennial Reign of Christ - By Abby Trivett

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

Charisma Magazine has some pretty good articles, but also some truly off the wall stuff. And there's some stuff that is plainly wrong. Though we usually examine the follies of cessationist Reformists/Calvinists, we are not reluctant to take charismatics to task when necessary.

Today it's the latter. We are not acquainted with Jack Hibbs and have never heard his teaching before. So we have no dog in the fight. In the video below, Mr. Hibbs intends to explain the millennial reign of Christ, and he will make up things out of thin air, turn Scriptures on their heads, and make a big to-do about a topic that frankly has little relevance to the Christian walk. That's right. Knowing about the millennium has little to no benefit.

The below article is a actually another writer's summary of this video. It's is only 400 words but it looks a lot longer. That's an irritating feature becoming more and more common on the internet: Web pages are inundated with ads, recommendations for other articles, and all sorts of other filler material, making the article appear longer and more substantial than it really is. This also makes it difficult to read, distracting to the point where we are simply tending to avoid these sorts of websites altogether. 

The writer of the article apparently intended only to regurgitate Mr. Hibbs' presentation without critical evaluation, which suggests that she agrees with it. In addition, there's a frustrating lack of Bible references, which is a shortcoming reflective of the video as well. 

So. What does the Bible say about the millennial reign? Well, 8 verses: 

Re. 20:2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations any more until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time. 

4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshipped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.   

7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth — Gog and Magog — to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 

9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 

That's it. There are other verses thought to be about the millennium, for example, Isaiah 65:25, Zechariah 14:16, Zechariah 9:10, and Jeremiah 30:9, but this is speculative at best.

Lastly, we should note that though Mr. Hibbs employs the Bible, but he will rarely directly quote it. We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Is Elon Worth It? Is he a net positive for humanity or a net negative? - by Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich never reveals his premise. He seems to think that he has the right, even the ability, to evaluate a person's value to humanity. Musk is involved in negotiating a compensation package for himself, and it's a big one no doubt. This is, of course, a private transaction involving consenting parties. The shareholders of Tesla may or may not approve. Is Elon worth it? That's up to them, not you, Dr. Reich.

In fact, Dr. Reich is sticking his nose where it does not belong. He's not a party to any of this. So why is he arrogantly assessing Musk's human worth? Because Dr. Reich is a Leftist, and Leftists think that they should be involved in other peoples' business. Well actually, they think they should be in control. Why?

Musk, by virtue of being rich, gained his wealth via exploitation. He strolled into the houses of poor people and help himself to their bank accounts. This means he's part of the bourgeois and needs to be taken down. Dr. Reich presumes himself to be part of the proletariat, the oppressed lower class that must rise up to overthrow the bourgeois. Yes, Dr. Reich is worth millions, but he's nowhere near as rich as Musk.

Maybe he's hoping the mobs will come for him last?

It's about class struggle; this is Dr. Reich's unstated premise.  The rich are evil. They are parasites on society. None of what they got was obtained without taking it from someone else. So it's very easy for Dr. Reich to amplify Musk's faults into him being a "hazard to humanity." Catch that? Musk is not simply a rich and successful businessman, he's been evaluated and condemned. 

Thus it is understandable, if not desirable, to terminate this menace.

This is Dr. Reich's moral compass. We should not dismiss him or other Leftists so easily. We should know by now what they're capable of.

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

Three Crosses; Two Sabbaths; One Empty Tomb: The Timeline Of Holy Week - by Dr. Thomas E. Rush & Pastor Nathan Rush

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

Jesus said he would be in the grave for three days and three nights. The obvious problem is Jesus could not have been crucified on Friday if He was resurrected on Sunday, which is the traditional view. No matter how innovative the solution, there's just not enough time.

We stumbled on what we thought was a sensible and simple solution to this problem, which we proposed and posted here. But ever since we've been wondering if anyone else had also covered this ground. In today's article the authors echo our solution.

It doesn't completely agree with our calculation, but it's close.

We must note that the authors make several ancillary misstatements about Jesus' sacrificial death, which we corrected. In addition, these and other additions add unnecessarily to the length. This article could have been half as long.

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