Why focus so much on lowering income taxes? - by Chris Cargill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is the typical right-leaning quasi-conservative. We don't wish to be mean, but the the fact is he thinks the Montana tax system can be improved by some tinkering. So, adjusting tax percentages, creating exceptions and deductions and tax shifts are right in the author's wheelhouse.

In other words, more of the same. More rules, exceptions, carve-outs, credits, and surcharges. Page after page of tax law few have read and no one understands.

In actual fact the tax system needs total overhaul. Scrap what's there and create a brand new piece of legislation. We don't care if the state gets less revenue. We don't care if the rich pay their fair share or not. We don't care if Big Business pays zero tax. 

Eliminate the tax system. Make a new one.

We want a one page piece of legislation. Can Montana have a one page tax system? Yup. It's quite simple, and as such is doomed to be rejected by the powerbrokers. 

Before we reveal our proposal, we shall assert that any tax system must embrace these truths:

• Truth #1: Taxes are a penalty, a disincentive, a confiscation. Taxes dampen economic activity.
• Truth #2: Taxes are an invasion into the privacy of people. The government should not be privy to the most personal details of a person's life.
• Truth #3: The sole purpose of taxation is to operate the constitutionally authorized functions of government. It must not be behavior modification.
• Truth #4: It is wrong to tax something that doesn't engage in economic activity. A house, personal property, vacant land, and vehicles, are in this category. 
• Truth #5: It is immoral to tax something that has already been taxed. Inherited money, for example, has already been taxed.

So these truths stand in total opposition to the stated goals of the author.

What is this one-page tax system? A flat retail sales tax, levied only on Montana purchases in Montana, constitutionally capped at 4% and constitutionally defined as the only permitted tax. Period. No exceptions, exemptions, or credits. This is the only tax, fee, levy, permit charge, or assessment the government is allowed. Forever.

A retail sales tax ties government revenue to economic activity. If people are doing well they are buying stuff. If people are struggling, they buy less. It doesn't matter if government happens to get less revenue. It needs to live on a budget just like every family does. It needs to be reigned in anyway.

 

In principle, the payment of a sales tax is voluntary. One must buy things to pay it, so the poor won't buy as much, as contrasted with a person who must have lots of money in order to buy lots of things. 

It doesn't matter if people buy out of state. The state must adhere to its own boundaries. It doesn't matter if out of state people come from a no-sales-tax state. When they are in Montana they pay Montana retail sales tax.

If the feds threaten Montana by withholding federal grants, perks, and loans, that doesn't matter either. Montana will learn to be properly budgeted, independent, and economically self-sufficient.

Yes, this is severe. But the problem of big, intrusive government is more severe. 

Reel it in.

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

Why There’s No Middle Position Between Calvinism and Arminianism - by David de Bruyn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

This utterly Scriptureless presentation was not written to explain, uplift, or instruct. No, the author wants to force the reader into a binary choice based solely on his Calvinism. This is what we find time after time. Calvinists only want to talk about Calvinism. They will never discuss the Bible unless they can insert their Calvinism.

He will assert that there is no middle position while simultaneously admitting there is a mix of beliefs: 

The questions of grace and election themselves have binary answers, but how you hold the matrix of the doctrines of grace is not a binary matter.

Thus he acknowledges the legitimacy of having a mix of each position even as he claims it's not possible.

Not only must we deem this Bad Bible Teaching, it is utter nonsense.

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

Do You Want to Hear From God? Open Up Your Bible - by Lumuli Mwakasungula

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

The author will never come out and tell us his purpose for writing. He's definitely concerned that people are picking and choosing Scripture, and it's also clear that he believes the Bible is the only way God speaks. However, he misuses several Scriptures and completely omits the Holy Spirit's role in the daily lives of Christians.

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

Who Wrote the Bible? - by Robert Cara

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a somewhat odd article. It's as if the author had an idea and liked it so much that he sought out Scripture to fill in the blanks. His idea is that God is the "primary" author of the Bible while the prophets and others were "secondary" authors. 

But God didn't write the Bible, He spoke it. We see this clearly in the author's own Scripture selections: 

Matt. 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet...

2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...

Ge. 12:1, 3b The LORD had said to Abram... 3 ...all peoples on earth will be blessed through

you.”

God speaks. His Logos sustains the universe (Heb. 1:3). The words God speaks are not the Bible, but the Bible is wholly comprised of God's words. These words are what saves us:

Ro. 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

The word "word" is rhéma, a spoken word, made "by the living voice." This is not the Bible being preached, it is the living word of Christ, the Gospel. We therefore think that referring to the Bible as the "Word" is confusing and inaccurate.

Further, we must question what it means to be a "secondary" author. Is the "author" the one who heard the Word or the one who wrote it down? Was Paul the "author" when he heard the Word of the Lord, or was the person who on occasion transcribed it for him (Galatians 6:11) the author? Did what God spoke become the Word only after it was written down?

The authors of some books (Hebrews, Esther, and Job for example) are unknown. Others who spoke the Word of the Lord did not write down what they spoke (1 Sam. 10:11, Acts 19:6, and 21:9, for example). The Word was also recorded outside the Scriptural canon (Jude 14-15)!

Many women spoke the Word but did not write it down:

• 1 Sam. 2:1-10  Hannah 
• Judges 5:1-9 Deborah
• 2 Kings 22:15-20 Huldah 
• Exodus 15:20-21 Miriam 
• 2 Chron. 9:5-8 The queen of Sheba

• Luke 1:41-45 Elizabeth 
• Luke 1:46-55 Mary
• Luke 2:36-38 Anna
• Mark 16:7 Mary Magdalene

The prophetic inspired Word is the thing spoken, not who wrote it down. Thus the question, "who wrote the Bible" misses the point entirely.

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

What is the spirit of wisdom and revelation in Ephesians 1:17? - by GotQuestions.org

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Gotquestions never quotes the passage all together, instead quoting chunks here and there. Here it is:

Ep. 1:17-20 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms...

Paul covered a lot of ground here, and we see a procession of thought as he builds concept upon concept. We need to understand this as we analyze the verses in order to properly answer the question. But by dividing up the passage and deleting parts of it, Gotquestions misses this development. Gotquestions then compounds the problem by summarily dismissing alternatives (most likely charismatic) to their view. 

We will explain below.

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

NEW! Counterarguments to Egalitarianism - by Michelle Lesley

Ms. Lesley never defines "egalitarian." One must go to the link she supplies to get a definition:

Egalitarianism is the anti-biblical view that women can do anything men can do in the context of the church and home. Women can be pastors, elders, heads of denominations, preach and teach the Bible whenever, wherever, and to whomever they want, and they don’t have to submit to their husbands.

Superficially correct. As with any doctrinal perspective, however, there are graduations along the continuum. We suspect that there are very few true Christians who would completely agree with her definition.

Why does Ms. Lesley write? Well, because it gives her another opportunity to further parse 1 Timothy 2:12 into additional micro-doctrines. This is one of her favorite topics. And she does it badly.

We discuss 1 Timothy 2:12 in great detail here.

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

On fallen pastors who seek the pulpit again - By Elizabeth Prata

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

While we share Ms. Prata's concern when these sinning pastors so quickly re-appear in the pulpit, sometimes after very serious sin, we reject the idea that there is no possibility for restoration to the pulpit. We would embrace a broader criteria, since sin of every kind is present in the Church and potentially disqualifying for every person (1Co. 9:27, Col. 2:18), not just pastors. And every man who comes into the Kingdom has a sinful past, even pastors.

It seems Ms. Prata thinks that the sin dividing line is when a man is saved. That is, a grievous sinner, once saved and having grown to maturity of faith, can be qualified to lead, but sin after being saved is not permissible for a leader. So someone like this man, a former porn star who repented, got saved, and is now a pastor, isn't disqualified. 

Such a dividing line is completely arbitrary, however. 

Ms. Prata lists a single disqualifier, failure to be above reproach. She derives these from 1 Tim. 3:2:

Now the overseer must be above reproach...

So, a pastor who falls into sin violates this criteria permanently, according to Ms. Prata. She makes a leap to get to this unexplained and undocumented conclusion. She quotes no Scripture that tells us this. Probably because there isn't one. There is no statement in the Bible that a fallen leader cannot be restored to leadership.

In fact, the Bible is replete with examples of leaders who sinned and stumbled, even severely, yet were not disqualified from leadership. David, Samson, Paul, Peter, Noah, Abraham, Jacob... it's a long list. Murders, adulterers, hypocrites, and liars. Yet God used them powerfully. They are historical giants of faith.

So, what does the Bible tell us about restoration, whether it's regarding leadership or not? Ms. Prata never tells us. In fact, she manages to quote only a single Scripture in his whole presentation. It seems important to us to discuss biblical restoration as a concept in an article questioning pastoral restoration.

We find that the church has a responsibility to restore:

Ga. 6:1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.

The word "restore" means exactly fit (adjust) to be in good working order, i.e. adjusted exactly "down" to fully function. So a leader or pastor or any Christian who sins needs to be put back to full function, if at all possible. The person needs to be restored to "good working order." That must always be the goal. No sin should disqualify any truly repentant person to return to their God-given gifts.

Of course, this requires repentance, counseling, examining of subsequent fruit, and continued accountability and evaluation. It is not done quickly or casually. But there is no hint in the Bible that restoration isn't possible or isn't permissible.

We should also mention that the Bible does not teach that pastors lead churches, the elders do (1Pe. 5:1-3). We therefore think that the Church is trying to treat the symptom but not the disease. The problem is that pastors are placed too high. They occupy unbiblical positions at the top of the pyramid. They have too much power, they are subject to too many expectations, and they carry a burden God never put on them. Of course they would tend to fall in such an environment.

Churches are to be led by a group of godly men, not a CEO pastor. This fact underlies the issue of pastoral missteps.

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

Bad worship songs - "See A Victory"

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, See A Victory.

Video link.

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

The Five Points of Calvinism -The Doctrines of Grace, Defined and Defended from Scripture

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have been devoting a lot of blog space to Calvinism, since it seems to us that its most vociferous defenders are getting increasingly loud. So once again we find ourselves examining another defense of Calvinism.

At almost 5000 words (including footnotes but not including charts), this is perhaps the most extensive defense of Calvinism we have seen on the internet. However, extensive does not mean thorough. Or Biblical. 

The author examines only a single, though significant, hostile source, The Five Articles of the Remonstrance. We are gratified that the author actually quotes from it, pretty unusual for a Calvinist. But there are also many thoughtful critiques of Calvinism subsequent to this 500 year old document.

In addition, the author quotes various sympathetic sources to explain his doctrines, but when it comes to the Bible he tends to quote it without commentary. The problem is, many of those Scriptures do not speak to Calvinism, while others are misinterpreted or taken out of context.

But the bottom line is, the author, like most Calvinists, devotes a lot of energy explaining and defending his Calvinism. In fact, Calvinists will never talk about Scripture unless they can insert their Calvinism. Their entire world revolves around the continual reinforcement of these doctrines.

This is very nearly cultic behavior.

Lastly, it continually strikes us that the "Doctrines of Grace" actually don't matter.  Everything about these doctrines is from the "now" looking back. Everything Calvinists are arguing about is a matter of the past for Christians. How we were included, who is included, and our prior status as lost men, all of that is past and makes no difference at all to those who are already saved. Therefore, Calvinism is moot to the saved, and irrelevant to the lost. 

Much of what the author offers has been answered elsewhere in our blog, but we will nevertheless attempt to offer succinct commentary.

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

Pleading My Righteousness? - by Dan Crabtree

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

The author works hard to establish his premise. He goes to great lengths to document his ideas with Scripture and then lays out a well-reasoned process to reach his conclusion. But his entire foundation is built upon a false assumption, that Christians are not actually righteous. This premise is the only one he does not document, which creates the need for explanations, work-arounds, and ultimately, verse twisting.

The false ideas that impede the author are:

• We are still regarded as sinners
• We only have Jesus' righteousness
• Righteousness is imputed
• The OT accounts of David's righteousness come to bear on us

It's a common idea that we are "sinners saved by grace." But in actual fact this ought to be past tense - we were sinners but Jesus' blood cleansed us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). ALL unrighteousness. We therefore have no need to have Christ's righteousness imputed to us because He already took care of our unrighteousness on the cross and made us new:

2Co. 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 

 

Heb. 10:10 ...we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Our former self, the sinful nature, is to be abandoned in favor of the new life and true righteousness He has given us:

Ep. 4:22-24 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

So the author really misses the point with his explanation. And in fact he never really answers the question or even tells us why we should even be "pleading" righteousness at all. 

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

Predestination: God chooses us. We don’t choose Him - By Elizabeth Prata

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

Ms. Prata is back too soon, this time to provide some Bad Bible Teaching about predestination, the Calvinist's favorite doctrine. Yes, we've written a lot about predestination, but it's like wack-a-mole. So, we'll keep wacking.

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

Bad worship songs: Son of Suffering, by David Funk, Aaron Moses, Matt Redman, and Nate Moore.

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, Son of Suffering.

Video here.

The Benefits of Bivocational Ministry - By Bryan Rigg

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

We wholeheartedly agree with the author. There are great benefits to bivocational pastors as the author well documents. 

However, his presentation is based on the unbiblical idea that churches are governed by CEO pastors with everyone else below him.

Churches are to be governed by a community of elders:

1 Peter 5:1-2 As a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings, and a partaker of the glory to be revealed, I appeal to the elders among you: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is among you, watching over them...

In our view, the very problems for which the author writes are all caused by the historic but unbiblical leadership model. The solution is to embrace the biblical expression of church leadership, elders.

----------

Understanding Revelation: Who Are the 144,000? - by Benjamin L. Gladd

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The speculation about the book of Revelation has been ongoing for decades. Hal Lindsey was influential for us. We were among those who took Hal Lindsey's books as very nearly gospel. The Late Great Planet Earth had us scanning the headlines for the latest prophetic event proving the rapture was imminent and that the anti-christ was alive right now. 

At the time we thought it was just what Christians believed. We didn't know that there were other streams of thought. But despite its popularity, this end times scenario never really sat well with us. After studying the various proof texts for years and speculating on who the anti-christ might be, we began changing our views. 

This began when we started actually reading the proof texts in context. The convoluted time frame derived from cherry-picked verses, the speculation about how it all connected together, the contradictions, the theories, it all began to grate on us.

We have arrived at a different view these days, dare we say a more biblical one. It's simple and makes sense. Our view is that the rapture happens on the last day. All believers will live through a time of increasing trouble, culminating on the return of the Lord coming on the clouds. He will meet us in the air, and then continue on to earth to execute judgment. We discuss the rapture in detail here. We discuss the Last Days here. We discuss the 144,000 in detail here.

So for this article the author wants to tell us who the 144,000 are. This is a somewhat short article at just over 1000 words. The author barely quotes Scripture, just a couple of irrelevant snippets and a portion of one relevant verse. Yet he quotes John MacArthur, Buist Fanning, and G.K. Beale. He doesn't bother to even quote the subject verses. How does one teach the Bible without quoting it?

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

So let's quote them. Here's the first mention of the 144,000:

Re. 7:1-8 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

2 Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea:

3 “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” 4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

Re. 7:5 From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,
from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,
from the tribe of Gad 12,000,
Re. 7:6 from the tribe of Asher 12,000,
from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,
from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,
Re. 7:7 from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,
from the tribe of Levi 12,000,
from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,
Re. 7:8 from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,
from the tribe of Joseph 12,000,
from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.

And the second:

Re. 14:1-5 Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. 3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No-one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 

Re. 14:4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. 5 No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.

With the actual verses before us, let's consider the author's presentation.

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

Picking Your Successor? - by J.V. Fesko

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

All of these described pitfalls are a product of the unbiblical CEO pastor leadership model. The pastor is the boss, the manager, the H.R. person, the window cleaner, and the snow shoveler. For too many churches, he's the guy who gets paid to do things so that the congregants don't have to. Everyone else will show up on Sundays, listen attentively to his sermon, write their tithe check, and go home. That's all that's expected of them, and that's exactly what they expect of church.

However, biblical church leadership is a team of spiritually 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...

It is the duty of this church leadership team of elders to train their congregants, not only for ministry, but indeed as their replacements. 

It is leadership malpractice to be a singular pastor over a church and not work toward maturing the flock and not equipping them for eventual leadership.

So the author wrestles with the problem singular leadership creates. The CEO pastor, happily perched on his pedestal, seems to have no motivation to train and raise up people into maturity of faith and ministry, in violation of 

Ep. 4:11-13 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fulness of Christ.

Lastly, there isn't a single Bible verse quoted or even mentioned. Not one word. We must deem this Bad Bible teaching.

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

Personal Holiness, Christlikeness and the Doctrine of Imputation - by Mike Ratliff

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------

We quoted only an excerpt, the part of Mr. Ratliff's article that was actually about the title. In this article he quotes Scripture at length but does not provide a single Scripture about imputation. This is distressing to us, since it is a substantial doctrinal claim that this imputation occurred. 

The doctrine descends from a single misinterpreted verse. Romans 4:6: 

Ro. 4:3-6 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works...

We quoted from the KJV because it to our knowledge is the only translation that uses the word "impute." This word, as well as the words "counted" and "reckoned," are the very same Greek word (to take into account, to make account of), used throughout Romans chapter four. It really is the key word, the lynchpin upon which the entire doctrine of imputed righteousness is built. 

In this passage Paul was in the middle of his argument regarding Abraham's faith. According to Paul, Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness [verse 3], as contrasted with a man who works and it is counted to him that he is owed his wages [verse 4]. 

Therefore, the man who works is owed his wages, and the man with faith is credited with righteousness as a gift [verse 5]. Is the man who works imputed with his wages? No, his wage is credited to him because he earned it. Is the man of faith imputed righteousness? No, righteousness is credited to him as a gift.

And like any gift from God, righteousness it is given for free and belongs to the recipient, just as the worker's wage is paid for his work and belongs to him. This is important, because we would not say, for example, that God "imputed" the gift of faith (First Corinthians 12:9), or teaching (Romans 12:7) to us, or that the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:14) or eternal life (Romans 6:23) were imputed to us, would we? No, we actually possess these things as a gift.

Of course we already know that we cannot obtain righteousness by works:

Ro. 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 

 

Ro. 9:30-31 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 

The use of the word "obtained" is telling. The Greek word is katalambanó, to lay hold of so as to make one's own, to obtain, attain to... We seize righteousness and own it by faith. Certainly Paul would not use such language if righteousness was merely imputed.

We think Scripture plainly teaches that actual, real righteousness by faith is immediately ours at salvation because of the completely efficacious blood.

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

Misinterpreting Romans 10:17 - Faith comes by hearing

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.
----------------

Can My Silence Cost Souls? - Interview with John Piper

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

The short answer for Calvinists is no, our silence will not cost souls because God has already irrevocably chosen The Elect.

Either the Calvinists are really pushing predestination right now or maybe they never stopped focusing on it. It certainly seems to be their favorite doctrine. We aren't quite sure why, since it's completely irrelevant to Christian living. How we got to be Christians no longer matters. 

So Dr. Piper contributes to the Calvinist narrative by attempting to explain how predestination doesn't conflict with evangelism.

He fails.

This is simply Bad Bible Teaching.

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

What Is a Liturgy, and Should We Have One? - by Jonathan M. Threlfall

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

This article is huge at over 2800 words, and happily the author quotes a fair amount of Scripture. However, none of it speaks to his thesis that we need the liturgy. Starkly, it's the only thing not documented by Scripture even though it's the topic.

In fact, the author is unable to make any meaningful distinction between liturgical and non-liturgical churches. All of his principles and good advice applies to either.

And yes, it is good advice, especially the admonition that worship must be the adoration of God. We like that.

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

At The Cross - original song using Suno

A couple of weeks ago I posted my best original songs, for the purpose of enlisting the help of some friends in order to pick out the best of the best.

The first recommendation was At The Cross, which I wrote in July 2013. (Audio link)

I hope you enjoy it and share it.

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