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.

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

Universal reconciliation: conversation with a Faceborg friend

Posted by a Faceborg friend:

THE GOSPEL is not universalism based on ignoring sin — it’s universal reconciliation based on the finished work of Christ.

Me: A distinction without a difference, isn't it?

Friend: Universal reconciliation does not "ignore" sin. Rather, it confronts sin through the finished work of the cross; in that He made Him who knew no sin to BE sin that we might become the righteousness of God in Him! (Christ) 2 Corinthians 5:21

Me: But if everyone gets reconciled, sin is irrelevant since the result is is the same either way.

Friend: Because somebody's got to BURN!!! But that's NOT the heart of God, nor is it His will! 2 Peter 3:9 This isn't some sick game where some get to win, and the rest have to lose. Do a word study on the Greek word "pas" (all).

. . . and by the way, sin IS irrelevant, except for those Evangelicals who worship sin and hell more than they do the redemptive heart of the Trinity!!!

That's why the Finished work, on the cross is Good News!!!!!

Me: You brought up sin, not me. If sin is irrelevant, so is the cross.

A Sketch of the Premillennial, Pretribulational Rapture of the Saints - By David Huffstutler

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

This is a textbook example of how to fit a doctrine into the Bible. We have long had complaint with the pre-trib rapture teaching. Those who teach this doctrine are inevitably obtuse and confusing. But we had some hope the author would be able to supply a coherent explanation. Alas, he could not.

In fact, the crucial concept that the rapture would occur before the Tribulation is never biblically demonstrated.

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

In our view, the rapture is on the Last Day of the last days, the Day of the Lord.

-----------

Download the Free Ligonier App - Ligonier

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We found this to be extremely odd. Reformists/Calvinists are really big on Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), contrasting this doctrine with the eevil charismatics who they say want to add to Scripture with prophecy and tongues.

But notice that this helpful new app from Ligonier doesn't seem to contain a Bible. But it's chock full of extra-biblical information. 

It continually amazes us that these folks don't see the irony of this.

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

Letter to the editor: By not allowing a local sales tax, we are 'kinda stupid' - by Orville Bach

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

This letter writer supports more taxes, which is what a typical Leftist would do. But he goes farther and tells us we are stupid for not wanting more taxes. Specifically, a local option sales tax.

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

Translations that don't improve the Bible - Colossians 1:21-22, TPT Bible

Introduction

There are a lot of Bible translations. A lot. Naturally, some are better than others. This can be "better" in word-for-word accuracy vs. "better" in the accuracy of the thought being conveyed. The word-for-word translations are highly accurate but can be difficult to read for those who tend not to be highly educated in theology, while thought-for thought-translations can flow more naturally for the casual reader, even though they cannot provide the same level of precision. 

It's an ongoing debate in Christians circles, one that we will not settle here.

A third category is a paraphrase, which places readability way higher in priority. Neither word-for-word nor thought for thought, paraphrases are story-based, more aligned with characters and the mood. These are the loosest in terms of accuracy, and generally thought of as not suitable to use for study.

The last category we want to mention is those translations that conform to one's preconceived doctrines. Such a translation comes with an agenda, like the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The NWT was written specifically to reflect the doctrines of the Witnesses. 

But even so-called "reliable" translations often have built-in biases themselves, particularly when it comes to Reformed/Calvinistic doctrines. It is not unreasonable to say that pretty much every translation carries some of the doctrinal bias of their translators. But generally, they are trustworthy and usable.

Given this, it shouldn't surprise us that The Passion Translation (TPT), by Dr. Brian Simmons, comes with its own bias. This bias is toward a particular brand of charismaticism that comes out of Bethel Church in Redding, California. Bethel is known for its sometimes spectacular claims regarding the manifestation of the supernatural. Some regard Bethel as a cult, while others consider it to be at the forefront of what the Holy Spirit is doing. 

This is also a debate we will not settle here.

There are notable connections between Dr. Simmons, Bethel church and its leadership, and Dr. Simmons' educational experience. So the main question we seek to answer is, does TPT carry a doctrinal skew based on its connections to a church? And, does Dr. Simmons have any formal, rigorous training in a recognized institution that would qualify him as a Bible translator?  

Lets deal with second question first. Please bear with us as we cover some background information.

The Problem with Comer’s Cafeteria Approach to Spirituality - by Matthew Bingham

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This author as a Reformed/Calvinist makes his tradition the benchmark for evaluating John Mark Comer's book. However, Comer pulls from various traditions in formulating a different understanding of how to walk out the successful Christian life. This offends the author, primarily because Comer is violating the boundaries of denominations and theological schools of thought. 

Comer may be sensible and might have some good ideas, or maybe, he's off course and teaching falsehood. If the author believes the latter, he does not make a clear case. 

But either way, we certainly understand Comer's motivations. The Christian church, particularly in the Western world, is lukewarm, compromising, and increasingly irrelevant. To a substantial degree, it has lost its way. Therefore, though his approach may possibly be wrong, at least Comer knows there's a problem and wants to do something about it.

But the author wants to preserve his tradition in the face of supposed threats to it. Comer wants something else because he believes that traditional ideas aren't working. The author will try to make his case for possible heresy, but based on this article, we simply don't see it.

We should note, we are not here to defend Comer or his book. In fact, we don't really care for his ideas on Spiritual Formation. We are interested only in the author's presentation.

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

Christians Must Not Share the Stage with False Teachers - by Dave Jenkins

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

It's not that we disagree with the author. It's possible that sharing the stage with a false teacher gives the false teacher credibility. It's also possible that a pastor who does so might end up compromised himself. 

But the author's treatment of the topic is superficial. We have these issues:

• What, precisely, is a false teacher? Is it someone who simply has a different opinion about certain doctrines? The Bible tells us a false teacher is an egregious, public sinner, adulterous and manipulative (2 Peter 2:1-22). We should therefore be careful to accuse someone of being a false teacher.

• Related to that is the idea that perfect, pure doctrine is a marker of a true church or a genuine Christian. But this is not God's standard, it's man's. 

• How might a pastor "share a stage" with a false teacher? Does it mean inviting a false teacher as a guest preacher? Does it mean attending a non-profit fundraiser where other pastors might be in attendance? Does it mean standing up on stage at the same time and being asked to affirm a false teacher? 

• Really, a typical local church is in little danger of doing this. Most local churches keep to themselves, even to the degree that it violates the call to Christian unity. A lot of pastors are territorial. They don't want other churches "stealing" their sheep. They are so concerned about differing opinions and different practices that they isolate themselves out of fear.

• Lastly, one might wonder how a church's pastor, solid in doctrine and mature in faith, leading a discerning, stable church, could end up enticed and compromised by a false teacher and wander off into error. We just don't believe this is very common. We do know that pastors fall with alarming frequency, but these are mostly moral failures where the pastor was unaccountable to anyone. Doctrinal compromise in this scenario is not terribly common.

We should also take note of the author's Scriptural documentation. Very little of it has to do with sharing the stage with false teachers. 

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

Don’t Take the Supper at Youth Camp or Get Baptized in the Jordan - by Ben Robin

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

The author isn't here to explain the Bible, he's here to explain his tradition and church practice. He quotes some Bible verses and essentially inserts them into his pre-arranged doctrines. What comes out of that unfortunate combination bears no resemblance to what the Bible teaches.

Baptism is not a church ceremony, it is a statement by the one being baptized regarding his faith and commitment to Christ. It belongs to him, not the church. Anytime believers get together it is a manifestation of the church, and baptisms can occur.

Communion is not a church ceremony either. It's a community meal and fellowship time where the Blood and the Body is honored. Anytime believers get together to do this it is a manifestation of the church. Communion belongs to the those who gather, not the church.

In the end, we are not interested in the author's traditions. We are happy for him if he finds meaning in them. But we will not tolerate him misrepresenting the Scriptures.

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

A Brief Theology of Preaching - by W. Tyler Sykora

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

The author makes a good effort to explain his topic, and does get some of it correct. However, his church tradition gets in the way. As a result he interprets Scripture through his Reformed/Calvinist viewpoint, and misses some obvious things.

Thankfully, he does quote a couple of relevant Scriptures, but supplies no Scriptural documentations for his primary thesis. This is unfortunate.

We're going to cut him some slack, however, because he's pointed in the right direction. We are hopeful he will be able at some point to examine the topic free from doctrinal preconceptions.

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

They’re calling it a “Hate America” Rally - by Robert Reich

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

Dr. Reich perfectly parrots the Leftist talking points that are disseminated all over the media landscape. Those talking points inevitably accuse the Right of what the Left has been doing for decades. We will note such occurrences with "Irony Alert."

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

Double predestination - by R.C. Sproul

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

Almost 3600 words. Only 2300 of them are actually Dr. Sproul's and not the quotes of others. He uses the word "Bible" and "biblical" a total of four times (not including quoted material). The word "scripture" is used once. 

But there is only a single Bible verse quoted: "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy." That's it, just ten words out of 3600. Truly astonishing that a supposed Bible teacher can write so many words explaining a supposed Bible doctrine without using the Bible.

This is Bad Bible Teaching. There is no other way to describe it. 

The entire article is obtuse and impenetrable, filled with theological jargon and unexplained premises. One must wade through hundreds of words that seem to be written in English to finally arrive at an explanation of the topic of the article:

In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives.

We will try to untangle this further as we go, but the basic thrust of this article is to attempt to explain the method by which God chooses the "Elect" (those He predestined to be saved) while not actively choosing the lost for hell. He will do his level best to keep God from being to blame for the sin. 

This is the doctrine Dr. Sproul will try to explain. Where in the Bible do we find this? Unknown, since he never tells us.

Our opinion is that the predestination verses are descriptive of the first century and not us. Let's look at Ephesians chapter one. Here we see Paul making the claim about being predestined: 

Ep. 1:4-5 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will —

Carefully note the use of pronouns. God chose "us," "we" were predestined. "We." "Us." Who is "we?"

Ep. 1:11-12 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, Ep. 1:12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.

Oh. The ones who were predestined are those who were the first to hope in Christ. The first to hope in Christ were the earliest Jewish believers and a little later, the earliest gentile believers [Ac. 13:48]. That's not us.

So if only the earliest Christians were predestined, then what about us? Let's continue:

Ep. 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit...

Notice the switch in the pronouns? No longer "we" and "us." It's turned to "you." 

Paul began talking about how "we" (those who were first to hope in Christ, vs. 12) were predestined, but then in verse 13 he turned to his audience and told them "you also" were included, and that happened when "you" heard the word of truth.

Another example is Romans chapter 8:

Ro. 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

 A careful Bible student would ask, "who did God foreknow?" Well, we can determine this from the context, which we find a few verses earlier in the same chapter:

Ro. 8:23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

Notice how profoundly self-referential this is. Paul was referring to a very specific group of people. It should be clear that Paul's statement applies very narrowly. We think the Roman church would have understood that Paul was not referring to every Christian. We should also understand this and not be quick to insert ourselves into the narrative.

Paul makes a careful distinction in referring to the "firstfruits of the Spirit." The "firstfruits" are the very first of the crop. We should understand that not every Christian received the very first part of the Holy Spirit and we cannot be pert of those whom Paul was talking about - - Paul says this happened to "we ourselves." "We ourselves." They received "the firstfruits of the Spirit." 

Contemporary Christians have not received the firstfruits of the Spirit. Indeed, we are 2000 years removed from this. We believe the firstfruits of the Spirit was the initial Pentecostal outpouring. We were not there to receive this. No, we have received the continued outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which has be going on throughout the Last Days pouring out.

The Elect, therefore, are the very first believers (i.e., the firstfuits). The rest of us are the same as those in the Ephesian church. All of the Elect lived and died 2000 years ago. Which makes Dr. Sproul's explanation entirely moot. The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination is completely false.

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

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.

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