Audacious Prayer - Bryan Elliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a really excellent explanation of how we should pray. "Audacious" is the author's inference from the below quoted verse regarding persistence (Greek, anaideia, shamelessness). It is an apt word.

We have two issues, however. The first is when the author writes, "Godly audacity is asking even though we do not deserve it..." But there is nothing, anywhere in the Bible that tells us that we don't deserve what we ask for. Nor does the Bible tell us we do deserve it.

Deservedness/undeservedness in not a concept attached to our relationship with God. 

Second, the author concludes, "We must pray with boldness and daring..." Yes, quite correct. But though the author quoted the whole passage he missed a crucially important point. What are we to be asking for? What does Luke tell us is the objective for knocking, seeking, and asking? Jesus told us:   

"...how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?"

Our audacious persistence is for more of the Holy Spirit.

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

License to Not Sin - by Stan Gale

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We might tend to agree with the author regarding many of the assertions he makes, but he doesn't tell us where they are in the Bible. Though he does quote the Bible at points, there are many other times we are left to our own devices as he jumps around the NT without telling us where he is.

But we also emphatically disagree with him when he misrepresents the sacrificial death of Jesus. For some reason Reformists/Calvinists are enamored with the idea that Jesus was punished by the Father. It's a macabre and false belief, which we will explain below.

Also, the author uses the word "license" in this article, but the meaning is never explained. It's not a commonly used word in the sense that the author uses it. The closest we could come is the freedom to break rules or principles. But we think he's tending toward the idea of an assumed permission to act because of certain freedoms.

Lastly, it seems the author is taking his audience for granted, that they possess prior knowledge of the background information upon which this article is based. Thus his explanation presumes certain assumptions not everyone might be privy to.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Bad worship songs: This is a house of prayer - by Mitch Wong

 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, This is a House of Prayer.

Video here.

The New Birth and Conversion—What Comes First? - by Conrad Mbewe

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is going to discuss a portion of the Reformed/Calvinist Ordo Salutis [order of salvation], which asserts that one must be born again before one can be saved. We covered this recently, but because of some unique claims we shall dive in again. 

So that the reader understands, the Ordo places "regeneration" before faith [conversion]: 

But there is no Scripture that tells us this, despite the author's various appeals to the Bible. In fact, when read in context, his proof texts demonstrate the exact opposite.

A quick survey of the Bible yielded a number of Scriptures that seem to presume salvation without the supposed prerequisite regeneration:

Ro. 6:7 ...because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

We see here that the unregenerate man is put to death in the new birth, which means he is forgiven (freed from sin). He does not experience rebirth in order to be saved.

1Jn. 5:11-12 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Here we discover that eternal life is equated with salvation. It is clear the new birth is the beginning of eternal life, which of course must presume a concurrent salvation. That is, saved is born again, and born again is saved. They are the same thing.

But more to the point, what difference does it make? If we are born again then saved, or saved then born again, what does it matter? Why is it important? 

---------------------- 

Paul Washer meme: The lamb who must die under the wrath of God

 We found this meme on Faceborg:

Transcript:

Paul Washer

Jehovah Jireh? It's not talking about providing a car. It's talking about providing a lamb. Lord will provide a lamb who must die under the wrath of God.

Repent, believe in Christ as the Savior of sinners. He is the mediatorial Prophet, Priest, and King.

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

Assuming Mr. Washer actually said this, we shall note the three things that grab our attention regarding this meme:

1) The Sacrificial Lamb vs. Material Needs:

We think Mr. Washer is reacting against so-called "prosperity" teaching. This is understandable, because the "name it and claim" it folks are too often caught up in God as a piggy bank rather than God as the Holy One.

That being said, it is clear that Mr. Washer is setting up a false dichotomy, that the provision of the Lamb of God for our sin is in tension with the provision of material need. However, there is no tension; both can operate. 

The phrase Jehovah Jireh comes from

Ge. 22:14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.”

Here is where God provided a lamb to sacrifice so that Abraham wouldn't sacrifice his son. This of course is a type for the lamb of God God would provide for us.

Nevertheless, there is the dimension of the provision of material needs that cannot be overlooked:

Mt. 6:11 Give us today our daily bread. 

The Lord's Prayer is a pretty weighty testimony.

Ph. 4:19 And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus. 

Here, Paul was in the midst of discussing the support he received from the Philippian church. And Paul promises all their needs will be met, and he was clearly not referring to Jesus' sacrifice.

2) Under the Wrath of God:

This is something we've covered often in our blog. Jesus was not punished by the Father, and He did not take our place. He died just like a sacrificed lamb did in the OT. The lamb was not punished, it was not regarded as guilty, and it did not substitute for the offeror. Similarly, Jesus' death was sacrificial, not substitutionary, and He was not regarded as guilty. He did not suffer the Father's wrath. He was not punished by the Father. The blood alone was enough.

3) Mediatorial:

This is a word not commonly used, so it is unfortunate that Mr. Washer finds the need to use it. We think that more conventional terminology should be preferred by anyone who thinks he's a Bible teacher. But since he used the word, let's explain.

We find one use of the word "mediator" here:

1Ti. 2:5-6 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men — the testimony given in its proper time.

In contemporary understanding, a mediator is one that reconciles differences between disputants. However, this is really not the ministry that Jesus engaged in. The Father didn't have a dispute with us, and we didn't have a dispute with Him. The "one mediator between God and men" didn't negotiate with the Father or us. He didn't reach a compromise. 

Rather, His sacrificial death brought us into communion with the Father. His death, once for all, ransomed us from the grave and delivered us into the presence of the Father via a new and living way, by the blood. (Hebrews 10:19-20). 

Memes are obviously not detailed explanations of things, but they are intended to carry a message. And here the the message is substantially flawed.

Why You Can't Dodge Theological Questions - By Jake Meador

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author cannot conceive of Christians who don't elevate doctrine to the position he does. For him it's the raison d'être, but some Christians are just not wired that way. He thinks that's a critical issue, but isn't really able to articulate why.

There's also a little cognitive dissonance going on. He discovered to his surprise that charismatics aren't the evil heretics he thought they were. His experience contravened everything he thought he knew about them. Desperate to retain some vestige of separation, he invokes a statement made by the pastor of the church he visited, magnifies it, enhances it, and makes the result into a strawman.

We don't want to be too harsh on the author. He's just experienced something that calls into question what he thought he knew. We went through something similar in our faith journey from cessationist to charismatic.

Lastly, this is not a Bible teaching. The author does not even mention the Bible or quote any verse.

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

The Divine Blueprint: Exploring the Five Points of Calvinism - By Anthony

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This author does his best to explain the unexplainable, the Calvinistic TULIP. Calvinists love to explain Calvinism. It's what they do. They rarely explain the Bible except when there's Calvinism to be found. This of course means that Calvinists never explain the Bible, they only want to explain Calvinism. 

This is what the author does. He quotes Calvin, Calvinistic theologians, and a Calvinistic statement of faith. There are seven of these instances. But in the course of his explanation the author is only able to quote a single Bible passage and two or three verse snippets. That's it.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Why Pray in a Calvinist World? Prayer & Providence in Calvin’s Institutes - By Mason Craig

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

After reading this article multiple times, we were unable to ascertain if the author answered the question contained in the title. 

But he will spend a lot of time discussing "providence," using the term nearly 40 times, and never does he define it. So we will step in. "Providence" is idea that God is working out His will via the regular features of creation and plain old ordinary processes of life, as distinguished from a "supernatural" signs and wonders sort of thing. 

The distinction is artificial, however, since both are God working out His purposes. For Calvinists the distinction is necessary since they do not believe God works supernaturally in Christians anymore. Thus providence was invented to differentiate the working out of God's purpose sans miracles.

The author also uses the word "means" more than a dozen times, also without defining it. "Means" simply is the avenues God might use to implement His will.

Further, his presentation is very nearly a tautology. "God uses means to accomplish His plans" essentially means, "God does stuff, and He uses stuff to do stuff."

And, when he finally does give us hints about his terminology, we find that they are basic ideas stated with complexity.

Lastly, the author rarely uses Scripture to document his assertions, but profusely quotes Calvin.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Nation Interviews Zohran Mamdani - by Katrina vanden Heuvel and John Nichols

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Less than 30% of Democrats voted in the mayoral primary. Of those, 43.5% voted for Mamdani. So 12.9% of New York Democrats voted for Mamdani.

56% of registered voters in the city are Democrats so 7.2% of city residents voted for him.
New York City has a population of 8.2 million. Of those 432,305 or 5% voted for Mamdani.

But he's the Left's new hero. He's somehow got a mandate to do even more of what has caused New York City's problems. His agenda as a Socialist perfectly matches the agenda of the Democratic Left, the only difference is that Mamdani openly admits his Socialism while Democrats run away from it.

Today's article is a fawning interview by star-struck Leftists designed to facilitate The Message. The Message is the daily talking points distributed by Central Command to the talking heads, opinion writers, and Hollywood. The Message has one purpose, to advance The Agenda. The Agenda is the dismantling The System, i.e., the American culture, way of life, and the constitution.

So you read below will be nothing more than The Message.

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

Episode Thirteen, Bonus episode, final photos

  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, rockers, here.

Episode six, fenders, inner fenders, here.

Episode seven, the doors, found here.

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

Episode nine, Hood, trunk, windshield gutter, cowl and firewall, heater box, found here.

Episode ten, Back glass gutter, grill, found here.

Episode eleven, headlight extensions, core support, roof, found here.

Episode twelve, final body prep and reassembly, found here.

Episode thirteen, bonus episode, final photos, found here.

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

These are the photos for the sale of the car. The car has been listed but hasn't sold, so I took down the ad and waited out the summer. The new ad will feature these shots. Hopefully it will sell.

Scripture Alone is Unscriptural - by John C. Wright

Found here. A fresh and interesting perspective on an old debate. While distinctly Catholic, the author makes some very good points.

Hoever, his defense of certain unique Catholic doctrines is surprisingly faulty. We will cut him some slack, however, for his otherwise brilliant analysis. 

------‐--‐-------‐------

How not to submit to a tyrant - by Robert Reich (Harvard)

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich cannot even remember what he believes from day to day. Are rich institutions evil or good? Is having billions of dollars evil or good? Should powerful government be resisted or embraced?

Today he defends the extremely rich (but apparently virtuous) institution called Harvard for resisting the will of government. And tomorrow he will blast extremely rich (and evil) businesses, likely for not paying their fair share of taxes or for resisting some government dictate. 

It's also worth noting that Harvard has experienced a surge in donations since Trump's actions,

...with $1.14 million collected in under 48 hours...

So it seems that if Harvard doesn't like Trump's dictates, the obvious solution is to stop taking federal money. It's clear that private donors are willing to take up the slack.

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

The Risk of Tolerating False Prophets in the Church - By Elizabeth Prata

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

Ms. Prata once again engages in sloppy, error-filled Bible exposition. She has a preconception about false prophets and women teachers, and wants to force this template upon her topic. In this case, it's the issue the church in Thyatira had with Jezebel. Ms. Prata's agenda is forced upon the text.  

Let's explain. The seven letters in Revelation were written in very specific contexts using imagery and language that is particular to the church being addressed. Some theologians have theorized that these letters represent seven evolutions of the Church over the course of history, but we don't think so. The details of each letter are very specific and are at odds with such a theory.

For example, the letter to Thyatira is the only letter that calls out a person by name for sin. But Jesus was not judging Jezebel so much as He was correcting the Thyatirian church for tolerating her false teaching and immorality. All that Jesus required was that she repent (2:21), but she didn't. And for those who committed adultery with her (or figuratively, deviated from the faith by following her strange teaching), they also were given a way out by repenting.

Then Jesus addressed those who rejected Jezebel's false teaching (which involved secret meanings and esoteric knowledge [2:24]). They were commanded to persevere, and if they do they will be given authority (2:26) and the morning star (2:28).

So this was not a false church, it was a church that tolerated false teaching. It only needed to repent to be restored to a great promise. Ms. Prata wants it to be about false prophecy and women in leadership, but it's not. She wants it to be about doctrine, but it's not. 

She wants it to be about a church that ends up condemned, so that she can extend it to present day churches she regards as condemned.

Lastly, Ms. Prata manages to quote only a couple of snippets from the subject passage, plus another unrelated verse at the end. 

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

Here's the passage:

Re. 2:18-29 To the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19 I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.

20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.

22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. 

24 Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you): 25 Only hold on to what you have until I come.

26 To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations — 27 `He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery’ — [Psalm 2:9] just as I have received authority from my Father. 28 I will also give him the morning star. 29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

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

90 years later, Social Security still delivers for Montana - Tim Summers Guest columnist

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is an apologist for the status quo, based on his vested interest in keeping his constituency happy. We don't begrudge him this, but we do take issue with the amorphous language and vague factoids he promulgates.

He does his best dance for us in order to present SS as a great thing, a wonderful success story, and popular beyond imagination. His word choice is carefully designed to make it seem like SS is saving seniors from certain death.

If one manages to survive until the end, the author's cheerleading veers into a little bit of truth, hidden in the fourth to last sentence, the "solvency gap." This successful and popular program has a problem, a problem that directly comes to bear on the topic the author has raised: "Social Security delivers for Montana." But he doesn't discuss this at all. 

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

Irresistible Grace - by Joel E. Smit

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is the second appearance of this author in our blog. His previous article did not fare well under analysis, so we have hope that he will acquit himself better today.

Unlike the previous article, today the author barely quotes Scripture, which means most all of his assertions are undocumented. We want to know where in the Bible these ideas are found. However, the author has no intention of teaching the Bible, he's teaching Calvinism. 

In particular, "irresistible grace." That is the topic of the article, yet the author cannot bring himself to quote a single verse that contains the concept. If the Bible teaches it, we want to know where.

Oh, but he can quote a Statement of Faith as well as a couple of theologians. And a hymn. Just not the Bible.

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

How to Choose Music for a Worship Service - by Jon Harris

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a pretty good article on the whole, but we have a few comments.

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

Bad Worship Songs: Give me Jesus (Gamoba, Avers)

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, Give me Jesus.

Letter to the editor: Social Security supports those who paid into it — and the economy - by Carol Stewart

Found here.

This barely coherent letter to the editor repeats all the typical leftist bumper sticker slogans about Social Security. It almost seems as though she copy and pasted sentences from various leftist websites in order to construct her letter.

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

What Promise Did Jesus Give Before His Ascension? - Ligonier Editorial

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We enjoyed this presentation. It was informative, biblical, properly documented, and well written.

Until the last paragraph.

The unnamed author, having done such a fine job up to now, inexplicably veers off course and opens a theological can of worms, even prefacing this last paragraph with "of course," as if it was self evident these things were true. But these final two sentences contain several undocumented claims and inscrutable statements: 

Of course, the Holy Spirit had been with the covenant community before the new covenant day of Pentecost, for He regenerated old covenant members and gave them the gift of faith. He had to do so because the only way that anyone believes in the one true God under any covenant is by being born again by the Spirit (see John 3:3). 

We have questions. 

• What is a "covenant community?"
• What does it mean that the Holy Spirit had been with the covenant community?
• How could there be a "covenant community" if the new covenant had yet to arrive?
• Who are "old covenant members?"
• How could "old covenant members" be regenerated before Pentecost?
• How could "old covenant members" be born again?
• Is there a difference between being regenerated and being born again?

We don't find the phrases "covenant community," "old covenant members," or the word "regenerated" in the NT. So the author needs to explain his terminology, and then tell us how terms like "covenant" comes to bear on the topic.

The Bible doesn't tell us that anyone was regenerated or born again before Pentecost. It is a claim of substantial import that salvation by faith and rebirth was a reality before the poured out Holy Spirit (Ac. 2:17), one that needs to be biblically documented. 

If being born again was possible before Pentecost, then Pentecost becomes irrelevant. We would therefore suggest that it wasn't possible to become born again prior to Pentecost. It requires the indwelling Holy Spirit to be born again, and He had not come yet:

 

Jn. 16:7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

Lastly, the author quotes absolutely zero Scripture. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Please stop insisting ‘God told me’ - by Stephen Kneale

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We would agree with the author that "God told me" is problematic, but not for the same reasons. We take issue because the statement is a conversation-ender. He takes issue with it because he's a cessationist and doesn't believe the gift of prophecy or any other sort of "supernatural" manifestation is available for the contemporary Christian. 

We think the prophetic spiritual gift is or should be in operation today, because we live in the "last days" (He. 1:2), where the Holy Spirit is poured out and our sons and daughters prophesy (Acts 2:17). As to how that should manifest we leave that discussion to church leadership. 

The bottom line here is that the author expects every revelation from God is Prophecy with a capital "P." And for unexplained reasons, every revelation must be confirmed by signs and wonders. We long for the author to make a biblical case for these astounding claims, but alas, the author manages to quote but a single ancillary Scripture. 

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

We discuss prophecy in some detail here and here.

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