What is the reward of success?

An interesting FB conversation.

This is one of those exchanges that make FB worth it. An idea is proposed, discussed, and the conversation yields benefits for all involved. Granted this is a rare occurrence, given peoples' increasing lack of ability to express ideas or examine them, but it is an endeavor worth pursuing.

My FB friend asked, "what is the reward of success?"

I asked him to define success. 

Elijah: 

Great qualifier, Rich! I would say it would be discharging the full trust of one’s responsibilities. What would you say?

Me: 

In terms of a task, yes, success is completing a duty according to assigned parameters.
In terms of a person's life, success involves a level of achievement, or attaining status.
In terms of the Kingdom, the obedience to and the pleasure of the King is the only possible measure. Our life is not our own...

Elijah: 

Well said! The question was birthed in the context of considering the parable of the talents/minas. In both contexts, those who are judged as good and faithful, being pleasing to their Master, are rewarded with increased responsibility. Elsewhere, those who are faithful with little are entrusted with much, being given more responsibility. I've been working through concepts of rest, success, excess, gain, prosperity, legacy, inheritance, and so on and the juxtaposition of a worldly mentality of cessation of work and responsibility being the goal of success against the kingdom reality pointing to the reverse. Success does not lead to one earning the right to sit on a porch sipping suds and golfing in the afternoon...but leads to being rewarded with increased responsibility that grows in ascending magnitudes of complexity: calling forth thriving within money is transformed into calling forth thriving within multiple cities.

This both fascinates and excites me. It is decidedly contradictory to a worldly mindset.

What are your thoughts on this?

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

400 years of silence

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.

Bob Cratchit and the minimum wage - FB meme **Updated**

 Posted by a liberal FB friend:

Transcript: Time for your annual reminder that, according to A Christmas Carol, Bob Cratchit makes 15 shillings a week. Adjusted for inflation, that's $530.27/wk, $27,574/yr, or $13.50/hr.

Most Americans on minimum wage earn less than a Dickensian allegory for destitution.

------

***Update***

A commenter wants to quibble with the inflation calculation. Fine. Whether the number is $13.50, $16.50, or $9.99, the problem is the same. There is no comparison to the wages, employment benefits, and legal environment of present day.

And by the way, if you follow the commenter's link and change the time period to 1960-2021, which is the beginning of the steep uphill climb of inflation, you'll see an average inflation rate of 5.35%. If you change the time period to 1843-1960, the average rate of inflation was 1.47%.

This means that there was very little inflation for quite some time, and then there began a steep increase right around the time when employment benefits ("By the mid-1960s, employer-provided health insurance was almost universal."), OSHA (1971), and the minimum wage (expanded to most workers in 1967).

In other words, the combination of factors means that a contemporary worker at $16.50/hr bears little resemblance to Bob Cratchitt. Contemporary workers are much better off.

***

There are numerous problems with this meme, not the least of which is the inflation calculation.

A British Pound consists of 20 Shillings (an obsolete currency), and the USD to Pound exchange is currently $1.336148. That makes a Shilling worth about 6 1/2 cents. So Bob Cratchit made about a dollar a day. 

Psst: You want to know the truth about inflation? (It's not what the Fed thinks it is.) - by Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich tries to deflect from one thing to another. He doesn't really want to talk about inflation, he wants to talk about eeevil corporations. He'd rather not discuss monetary policy or government malfeasance, for his purpose is to blame businesses for being too successful.

Now, we are the first to admit that some businesses do bad things. This is Dr. Reich's complaint. But most of what he chronicles is illegal. Yes, it is illegal to price-fix. It is illegal to collude. This means when a business breaks the law, it needs to be prosecuted. That is government's job. So what we actually have here is a failure of government.

Dr. Reich manages to completely avoid discussing inflation by conflating price-fixing with inflation. The two are not the same. Inflation is the loss of value because there is too much currency in circulation. This occurs when the government prints money and spends it, particularly in the form of stimuli, bailouts, and subsidies. 

For example, if there are, say, 100 dollars in the economy, we know each dollar is worth 1/100th of 100 dollars. But if the government prints 10 more dollars and puts them into the economy, then there are 110 dollars in the economy with no increase in value. Now, each dollar is worth 91 cents. This is inflation. 

Now, let's draw in Dr. Reich's complaint. The eeevil corporation raises its prices (which is perfectly legal). Does it matter that the company is profitable? No. This company raised its prices for its own reasons, reasons which are none of Dr. Reich's business. Unless of course the company did something illegal.

Being profitable does not mean a company's products are properly priced. If the company has supply chain problems, staffing problems, or production problems, it may well decide to raise prices. Raising prices is a decision made based on the company's assessment of its own position in the marketplace in relation to its competition, tax policy, oppressive legislation, labor supply, etc, etc.

But we also must consider that if the government is pumping billions (trillions) of additional dollars into the money supply, the company must realize that inflation will mean its pricing will be inadequate. That is, inflation influences not only buying power, but also product pricing.

We would be remiss if we did not also mention that an economy the size of the US's has millions, if not billions of transactions occurring every day. There are thousands of factors affecting the processes of the economy. But for Dr. Reich there is only one relevant one: Greedy corporations.

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

What are celestial beings? - an overview

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.

Are There Differences between Christ’s Humanity and Ours? - by Robert Letham

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is not an article. It is not a discourse on the Scriptures. It is not an attempt to edify the believer. It is not even an explanation of the question asked in the title. That question is never answered. 

It is not an article because the author, Dr. Letham, simply quotes, references, or paraphrases theologians. He employs a total 1411 words (not including footnotes) but only about 250 words are actually his. The balance of the words are from other people. This means he personally contributes virtually nothing to the discussion.

In addition, the Bible is not quoted. Not once. There are a few references to Bible verses, but this theological pop-goes-the-weasel contains absolutely no Scriptures. It mystifies us how an article explaining doctrine and theology would not contain a single Scripture quote. How is this possible?

The Scriptures he references are worthy of exploration. He does not do this. And one glaring lack of mention is Ph. 2:6-8: 

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!

Lastly, the author presumes that the fallen nature of man requires redemption traces to Original Sin. We shall not take a position on this doctrine, but it is worth mentioning that presuming the doctrine then dismissing the possibility of Jesus not assuming the fallen nature because of it is a great oversight.

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

The Right’s Bad-Faith Argument About Bodily Autonomy - By David M. Perry

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The total lack of awareness exhibited by the author regarding his own irony would be amusing if it wasn't so pitiable. He is libertine regarding absolute personal autonomy, and simultaneously pro mask mandate. He vociferously defends a woman's right to abortion, yet is happy to suggest that violators of mask mandates should have their rights rescinded.

It must take a gargantuan effort to suppress the cognitive dissonance.

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

Reprise: Are There Apostles in the Church Today? - by Nathan Busenitz

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

Mr. Busenitz attempts to answer the question without quoting a single Bible verse. Not one. He does cite a number of Bible references and summarizes the contents of some of them. He also quotes theologians and historical figures, sometimes at length. 

But he never quotes the Bible. Astonishing.

We discuss the apostles in great detail here.

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

Climate Change Myths - Louder with Crowder

Found here. No commentary necessary.

OBAMA IN GLASGOW

• On Monday, Barack Obama showed up in Glasgow to lecture the peons on CLIMATE CHANGE! Obama spent a large portion of his speech shitting on Donald Trump and Republicans and tooting his own horn.
  • The biggest reason greenhouse emissions have steadily decreased is because of natural gas, not more Obama era regulation. SOURCE: UNIPCC
  • The Paris accords don't do anything. China, the world's largest polluter, has increased carbon output even though they were in the Paris agreement. SOURCE: NYPost
  • In 2019, after leaving the Paris agreement, the US reduced emissions by nearly 3%, the most of ANY major country. SOURCE: IEA
  • Weather-related deaths have decreased over time. SOURCE: WSJ

The Worst Gospel Presentation Ever - By Elizabeth Prata

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata, a self-professed "discernment minister," attempts to provide the correct version of the Gospel message. We think she fails, mostly because of the flaws of Calvinism, but also because she never quotes any Scripture at all. We think "the worst Gospel presentation ever" has to be the one that never quotes the Bible.

For some reason she lists her own version, then provides someone else's similar version, adding a few things and changing some wording. At least the second version has good and pertinent Scripture citations. 

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

Exposing the Cancel Culture Lie - Charisma Advocates for Canceling Salvation Army - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Rev. Wade appears yet again in our blog. Sort of like a car accident, we simply cannot look away from his obtuse writing. 

Today he levels his sights on critics of Cancel Culture. With an unawareness of his own irony bordering on satire, he accuses, denies, excuses, and dances around. He explains nothing, documents nothing, and enlightens no one.

Rev. Wade will initially deny Cancel Culture exists, then endorse it four separate times. That is, "You're crazy if you think there is such a thing as Cancel Culture. But they deserved being cancelled."

As we have begun to routinely note, Rev. Wade is a leftist masquerading as a truth-teller. He has withering criticism for Republicans, but never has criticized or even discussed the follies of the Left.

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

Unworthy, Undeserving. Are these biblical concepts? 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.

What Is Grace? -by R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Thankfully, R.C. Sproul manages to quote some Scripture, something that is all too rare for those who would present themselves as Bible teachers. This delights us.

Dr. Sproul provides a definition of "grace," but it is not a Biblical definition. He writes, here’s our working definition of grace—it is un-merit. He spends a lot of time describing merit in connection with grace, that is, we don't merit anything. 

The problem with this definition is, when we think of "un-merit" we think "not merited." "Not deserved." "Undeserving." Yes, it is certainly true that we did not earn our salvation, i.e., God did not give us salvation with regard to any deeds we might have done. However, grace is actually something else, charis:

preeminently used of the Lord's favor – freely extended to give Himself away to people (because He is "always leaning toward them").

5485 /xáris ("grace") answers directly to the Hebrew (OT) term 2580 /Kaná ("grace, extension-toward"). Both refer to God freely extending Himself (His favor, grace), reaching (inclining) to people because He is disposed to bless (be near) them.

Grace is not undeserved/unmerited kindness. Grace is not "un-merit." Grace is God coming near because He loves to be with us and freely bless us.

There is no mention of merit/un-merit in the above definition of "grace." Both are completely absent from the meaning. in fact, God does not deem us undeserving. There is no verse that says that He measured us up and declared us unworthy. It is certainly true we have all sinned [Ro. 3:23], and that we need to repent [Mt. 4:17, Ro. 2:5], but nowhere does the Scripture say God pronounces us unworthy.

He does not consider merit at all, and that is absolute. That is, He neither considered merit nor considered un-merit. Merit/un-merit did not enter the picture. 

Therefore, merit/un-merit is a foreign concept inserted into the definition of grace. 

We should not make the same mistake as the nation of Israel, about whom Paul declared

Ac. 13:46 We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.

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

Kyle Rittenhouse Has Gotten Away With Murder—as Predicted - By Elie Mystal

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The reader will note that the author never addresses the actual evidence, but instead wants to focus on minutiae, recharacterize the rioters, and make it about race.

Plus, the author will have nothing to say about black on black crime, an epidemic that far overshadows issues of "whiteness."

Also, who exactly predicted Rittenhouse would be found not guilty? The entire left wing immediately pronounced him guilty, racist, white supremacist, vigilante, etc. No one on the Left ever thought he would be acquitted.)

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

How 'Socialism' Gave us Coronavirus Vaccines and Saved the World From a Worse Pandemic - By Bernard Starr

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author lauds government involvement in the development of the vaccine, but somehow never mentions Trump or operation Warp Speed. 

The author alternately accepts then denies the desirability of government money given to the private sector. 

He doesn't know what socialism is. He doesn't know what capitalism is. 

This article is a muddled mess.

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

The Most Important Aspect Of Dealing With False Teachers - by DEBBIELYNNE KESPERT

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Kespert has always distinguished herself by avoiding the bomb throwing so prevalent among the group of Christians we have deemed the "Doctrinal Police." For this we commend her.

That doesn't mean she gets it right all the time, however. She is a Calvinist and a John MacArthur devotee, which means she has experienced some bad teaching.

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

Who are Jesus' Sheep? - John chapter 10

Jesus' description of the sheep in John Chapter 10 has attracted our attention, because some cessationists claim that the sheep are those who have the Gospel call issued to them, but they are not saved. So, they are not Christians responding to the voice of the Shepherd, but rather they are lost sheep who are being offered salvation. 

Alternately, cessationists will claim that the sheep are indeed Christians, but the Shepherd's voice refers to the Scriptures. They believe that God does not speak to Christians, because we have the complete revelation of God in the form of the Bible. Thus, no prophecy, impression, or "leading of the Holy Spirit" is possible today.

Cessationists make these claims in order to avoid the possibility that Jesus speaks to Christians (contemporary prophecy), which is an idea they reject. 

Charismatics, however, appeal to the verses as proof that Jesus speaks to Christians today. They believe the gift of prophecy continues today. See here and here or our more detailed discussion of prophecy.

We believe that each of these positions are incomplete at best, and misleading at worst. In each case, one's doctrinal predisposition interprets the verse. This is problematic and leads to error.

The Regulative Principle of Worship - by Derek Thomas

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a muddled mess. The author attempts to teach us biblical principles, but he never explains worship, he never explains corporate worship, he never tells us what worship means or his view on what the Bible says about how it is to be practiced.

Plus, this Bible teacher manages to quote only a single Scripture, plus some snippets of a few more, in over 1400 words. But he is able to quote theologians and statements of faith, sometimes at length.

For the author, worship is what happens in church on Sunday. His entire presentation is regarding proper conduct and procedure in a Sunday service. But he will never discuss worship itself.

Worship is proskuneó, which means to kiss the ground when prostrating before a superior; to worship, ready "to fall down/prostrate oneself to adore on one's knees..." Does the author's church proskuneó, or does it simply follow rules taught by men and call it worship?

We don't need to appeal to rarefied principles or lofty terminology. This is our Regulative Principle of Worship: 

Jn. 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth. 

What does God require? 

Mi. 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

We suspect the author does not want to discuss these simple things because he doesn't understand worship. He wants to obscure it behind long, pedantic explanations that don't really explain anything. He wants to make a case for his traditional understanding of how church is practiced on a Sunday morning. He wants to avoid the clarion call to offer God the glory due His name [Ps. 29:2], and worship Him in the splendor of His holiness [Ps. 96:9]. 

He thinks we need a Regulative Principle, dressed up in arcane explanations, when we just need to know how to be worshipers.

If our speculations about the author are false, we apologize. We are simply judging by what he has written.

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

Should I Choose a Church for Its Pastor? by: Mark Dever

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It seems the author wants to talk about something else besides the title's subject. He's actually answering the question, "what should be a church's highest priority," or, "why churches should conduct traditional services."

While no one doubts that the Word ought to be a focus of the church gathering, the problem here is that the Bible does not tell us to come together and listen while an expert explains Scripture. The principal description of a church gathering is found in Ac. 2:42-47:

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common.

45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

The author does not mention this passage, nor does he mention the instructions Paul gives the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians chapters 11 through 15 about how their gatherings should be conducted. In fact, the author never mentions any Scripture about how a church should conduct its meetings.

Further, the author never explains why a person should choose a church based on the quality of the preaching. Nor does he mention "church shoppers," who want certain things from the church they join with, rather than them going in with the attitude of what they can offer to the church.

Actually, expert, powerful preaching doesn't even need to be a requirement to attend a church. And, preaching doesn't have to be the central ministry of a church. A church with a powerful expositor of the word isn't necessarily a good church. 

A beginning pastor with a halting delivery might be exactly the church someone ought to attend. An elder-led church with a shared leadership [1Pe. 5:1-3] might be a better choice. A church that needs gifted, mature people to manage a revival might be even better.

Ultimately, there is very little good advice in this article regarding choosing a church. The author is actually intent on criticizing is the non-traditional ways churches do their Sunday gatherings. He doesn't like them. They are not what he prefers. In the final analysis, the author wants tradition. He want good little sheep to come every Sunday, sit attentively with their hands on their laps, write out their tithe checks, and go home.  Leave the ministry to the professionals.

Which means for those who value a good sermon above anything else (or perhaps, those who need their ears tickled yet again with the 10,000th sermon they've heard), well, we guess the author has a point.

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

THE GREAT EXCHANGE…Romans 8:1 - by ROBIN SELF

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Since the author never quotes the verse, we shall remedy the problem:

Ro. 8:1-4 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

It is important that we have the passage before us as we consider the author's explanation.

We cover in detail the false teaching that the Father punished Jesus here. We refute the idea that the Father turned away from Jesus here. We cover Penal Substitutionary Atonement here.

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

Discernment and the Sufficiency of Scripture - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Curiously, the article's body deals neither with discernment nor sufficiency as promised by the title. 

Happily, Dr. MacArthur will actually quote Scripture in this presentation. This is rather rare in our experience. 

Curiously, Dr. MacArthur brings a subtle twist to the topic. He wants the apostle Paul to be defending Scripture, but Paul is promoting the teaching delivered to the Thessalonian church. In fact, the word Scripture does not appear in either letter to the Thessalonians.

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

Parental Rights and Public Education Shouldn't Mix - By Patrick Mattimore

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author makes an exceedingly weak case for excluding parents from the educational process.

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

WHEN THE RACE IS WON…Hebrews 12:1- by ROBIN SELF

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Before we begin, let's quote a larger portion of the passage:

He. 11:38-12:1 ...the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground. 39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40 God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

He. 12:1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.

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

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

More thoughts from a 80 (now 90) year old woman

 9/1/13 - Don't let anything bother you. Stay always in my presence and you will have peace. Is. 26:3

9/2/13 - Neh 8:10 Ampli "strength" is "stronghold." Phil 4:13 It is Christ that does everything though you as you give up self.

9/4/13 - Prov 4:22-27 I told you to attend to my words. Keep them ever before you.

10/28/13 - Think of Jesus every day and every hour... but to think of Him every minute is a lifetime.

Why the GOP Beats the Pants off the Democrats - By Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We don't have a lot to say about this article. It contains numerous characterizations against Republicans, but ironically they are all things Democrats actually do. We see this frequently. Republicans will complain about a anti-republican bias in the media, for example, and will document it. A while later, a random leftist will complain about the media being biased against Democrats. We have deemed this "Irony Alert," and have created a tag called "Mountain Man's Law."

There are several false statements as well, which we have labeled "False" or "Spectacularly False." 

Lastly, there is one surprising true claim: "The other was a mistrust of Democrats. That they were the party that shamelessly pandered to minorities on spending and social programs at the expense of tax-paying middle class and especially working-class whites." We expect that the author will soon be excoriated by his party for this moment of candor.

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

What is the gospel? - a bad answer - 9marks

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The most important message of God to man, salvation by repentance and faith in Jesus, better be clearly communicated. The below is a fail. It contains peculiar language about rescuing people from their enemies, complicates things with inaccurate explanations about the kingdom, and introduces concepts like "mediating priest" and "priestly sacrifice" that would be meaningless to the average non-Christian.

At the end we will offer a clarified version of the author's presentation.

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

Existing socialism's successes discredit Friedman's core argument - By Rainer Shea

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

When considering the defenses socialists make regarding their beliefs and their indictments of capitalism, we typically find that the cases they make are superficial, misleading, or founded upon false premises. So we were surprised to find the below article, which is none of these things. The author actually reviews the ideas of a free-market economist (Milton Friedman), critiques the concepts presented, and offers a thoughtful rebuttal.

This almost never happens with socialists.

Now, that doesn't mean the author succeeds in rebutting Friedman or negating capitalism. In fact, he is hindered by the typical socialist obstacles: He misunderstands capitalism, he assumes the superiority of socialism, and he thinks this is about competing economic systems.

We also note that the title of the article suggests that the author is going to name the socialist success stories. He does not do that.

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

Warnings to 7 churches are so relevant today - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It is coming to a level of regret that we examine Ms. Prata's writings yet again. This unfortunate woman authors these articles as if she was some sort of authority, completely unaware of her logical foibles. It is a marvel that someone could be so sure of themselves, yet be so utterly unaware of their inadequacies.

It's not that she's stupid, she seems to be a smart woman. Rather, she seems incurious. She recites back everything she's been told without examining it or questioning it. Everything she writes is the "party line;" everything she writes is what someone else has said.

Today Ms. Prata actually quotes a Scripture, and it's a relevant one to the topic she discusses. Unfortunately, rather than consider the Scripture and derive a lesson from it, she simply repeats talking points.

Besides the historical insight gained from these seven first century churches, and besides learning what Jesus values about them, another lesson of these letters is to see if there is something to apply to one's self and motives. Rather than do that, Ms. Prata is looking to assemble her doctrinal enemies in order classify and criticize them. 

Ultimately, her purpose is to attack Joel Osteen. We should note that we do not intend to defend Osteen, we want to examine the author's pronouncements.

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

Divisiveness vs. Discernment - by John MacArthur

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. MacArthur intends to explain discernment in this excerpt. It is very odd that he ignores the principal Scriptures about discernment, and selects Hebrew and Greek words that do not explain discernment; or perhaps, his explanation avoids the actual word definitions. 

It is a very strange explanation. Dr. MacArthur doesn't quote a single Scripture. It mystifies us how a supposed Bible teacher can teach the Bible without quoting the Bible.

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

America's real moral crisis: Not private morality but public morality -Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich is always good for a headscratch. His doctrinaire leftist screeds often defy logic. 

It no longer bothers us that this Rhodes Scholar never puts together a logical, reasonable presentation. This is because it is quite evident that Dr. Reich does not intend to explain things. His intent is agitprop, to throw up clouds of dust, to divert, confuse, and avoid.

The reader who is armed with this information will be better able to understand his writing.

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

What Are the Five Solas? - by Ryan McGraw

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

Reformation Day is celebrated every year by those who hold to reformation theology. So there has been a blizzard of commemorations on various reformationist websites. 

The below excerpt explains, or tries to explain, Sola Scriptura. Leaving aside the stark irony of celebrating the uniqueness of Scripture while simultaneously managing to quote only a snippet of a single Scripture, The author jumps to a conclusion not warranted by what he previously wrote. 

He writes, if Scripture is sufficient to make us wise for faith and life in Christ, then Scripture alone can be our guide to walking with God. This is a non-sequitur. The author's further claim, Scripture alone can be our guide, is patently false and unbiblical. The Bible tells us that we have several helps and guides for our walk of faith:

• The ministry of the Body [1Co. 12:12-31]
• Teachers [1Co. 12:28, Ep. 4:11]
• The Holy Spirit [1Jn. 2:27, 1Co. 2:10-12]
• The gift of prophecy [1Co. 12:10, 1Co. 14:1, 1Co. 14:26]

Further, we also have the resources written by learned men, like commentaries, concordances, and books of theology. If only Scripture alone can be our guide, then the author is engaging in a substantial irony by writing this extra-biblical article. We must judge the author by his own words, everything else is both useless and superfluous.

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

Faith Minus Reason Equals Irrational Unbelief - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It is mystifying to us how Dr. MacArthur can be viewed as a notable Bible teacher. Now perhaps he does some things well, but nearly everything we have read from him is logically deficient and nothing more than a series of undocumented assertions.

Today's article is exactly that. They key issue he wants to address, irrational faith, he does not document. In fact, he doesn't quote a single Bible verse on faith. He doesn't explain what faith is, or how rational faith works itself out. 

He completely avoids the subject at hand, and simply substitutes "sound doctrine." This is strange.

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

Steven Furtick Says God Doesn’t Make You into a New Creation - Staff Writer

Found here. And Reformation Charlotte chimes in. Our comments in bold.

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

The Doctrinal Police are raising their hysterical voices in concert once again. The Undynamic Duo agree that Steve Furtick's statement is beyond the pale. But their track records as Defenders of Doctrine are pretty spotty. 

We should note that we are not here to defend Furtick, who has said some problematic things in the past. We intend to examine the statements of the Undynamic Duo.

Both of them, hyperventilating and unhinged, find themselves blinded by their obsession regarding any deviation from doctrinal purity, no matter how slight. But the glaringly obvious problem with their claim: Furtick was not talking about salvation or the new creation. 

Here's what he said in the video: "The process of discipleship is not God changing you into something else, it's him revealing..."

The embarrassing little detail, obviously missed by the Undynamic Duo, is that Furtick is talking about sanctification, not salvation. That is, we as Christians are ALREADY new creations, so the process of discipleship reveals who we are in Christ. Our identity has already been changed at salvation, so discipleship unveils this.

Furtick's statement is hardly controversial in context.

Unfortunately, we find this kind of thing quite often with these folks. One would think that organizations that presents themselves as Defenders of the True Faith would take the time to get things right. Alas, this too rarely is the case.

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

Bad worship songs: "Heaven Come" - Scott Ross Ligertwood, Brooke Ligertwood, Jenn Johnson

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 good 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 as many as possible of 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
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Scripture quotes or allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness

Further, a worship song should not:

1. contain lyrics that create uncertainty or cause confusion
2. be excessively metaphorical
3. be excessively repetitive
4. imply that Jesus is 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 today's song, "Heaven Come." (Youtube video.) It is a well-crafted song, but it has problems.

Who saw the resurrected Christ?

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.

Verse of the Day: Acts 18:24-26 WHAT ABOUT PRISCILLA? - by ROBIN SELF

Found here. Our comments in bold. At the end is the conversation we exchanged on her webpage.

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

Here we have another person trying to explain the role of women in churches. We think she fails.

Like Michelle Lesley, Ms. Self has developed a list of micro-doctrines, provisos, and derivations the grows ever larger as she parses 1 Timothy 2:12. We have written extensively on the role of women in leadership, so we will try to not repeat ourselves.

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

An estate auction - what you leave behind

There was an estate auction last weekend, and I bought the contents of the deceased's workbench. It was dozens of drawers, cabinets, shelves, and cubbies, each filled to the brim. A lot of stuff. A lot. Filled my pickup. I carted it all home, unloaded it, and started picking through my new treasure.

As I sorted it through I found a lot of good stuff. A lot. I also found pieces of broken tools, worn out saw blades, half finished little projects. I began to realize that I had purchased an important part of someone's life. I was looking at the bits and pieces of this man's passions. It was sobering, almost like I was invading his privacy. The things that he saved in little jars and empty tuna cans were like his secrets.

Every single cessationist false argument in one handy guide

We have assembled the false teaching of cessationists into one place, and we have provided links to our detailed explanations. We also refer the reader to our post, 12 Scriptures cessationists misinterpret, which deals with the most popular cessationist proof texts, and also to our Cessationism Series.

Lastly, our complete body of commentary regarding cessationism is found here.

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

1) Using Invented, Pejorative, Contradictory Terminology That Assumes the Premise

• "Sign gifts" (Healing, prophecy, speaking in tongues, for validating the apostles. Discussed here.) 
• "Authenticating signs" (For validating the apostles.)
• "Apostolic sign gifts" (For validating the apostles.)
• "Special authenticating signs" (Healings and wonders.)
• "Revelatory gifts" (Visions, words of knowledge, words of wisdom, and prophecy.) 
• "Sign and wonder gifts" (the "supernatural gifts" which have passed away.)
• "Service gifts" (Non-miraculous gifts for the average Christian today.)
• "New special revelation" (Prophecy. Discussed here.)
• "Additional revelation" (Prophecy.)
• "Private revelation" (Prophecy.)
• "Extra-biblical revelation" (Prophecy.)
• "Direct revelation" (Prophecy.)
• "Continuous revelation" (Prophecy.)
• "Unidentified promptings" (Prophecy.)
• "Supplementary revelation" (Prophecy.)
• "Charismaniac" (Someone who believes in all the spiritual gifts.)
• "Mindless utterance" (Tongues.)
• "irrational babble." (Tongues.)
• "irrational tongues" (Tongues.)
• "Sola Scriptura" (discussed here.)
  

Debunking Dominionist Arguments Regarding Critical Race Theory - By Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The incendiary and hyperbolic Rev. Wade often exceeds our ability to intelligently respond. He is beholden to the Leftist Narrative, and seems only able to parrot word-for-word leftist talking points.

As typical for the Doctrinal Police, Rev. Wade is unable to see his own foibles. And also in typical fashion, Rev. Wade will barely quote or teach the Bible. 

The purpose of his article is not a "devotional," it is a political hit piece. Indeed, the word "dominionist," featured in his title, appears only once in his screed, and that to brand Mr. Hyatt. He doesn't even bother to show that Mr. Hyatt is a dominionist or how Mr. Hyatt's opinion is dominionist.

In actual fact, the accusation of "dominionist" is simply an excuse to try to debunk critics of CRT, nothing else.

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

Bad worship songs: Extravagant - Bethel Music - Randy Matthew Jackson, Sean Feucht, Steffany Gretzinger, Amanda Cook

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 good 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 as many as possible of 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
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Scripture quotes or allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness

Further, a worship song should not:

1. contain lyrics that create uncertainty or cause confusion
2. be excessively metaphorical
3. be excessively repetitive
4. imply that Jesus is 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 today's song, "Extravagant." (Youtube video.) It is a well-crafted song, but it has many problems.

Jesus became sin, and Todd White says...

Found here and here. Our comments in bold.

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

Protestia and Reformation Charlotte both hyperventilate over Todd White's explanation of 2 Corinthians 5:21:

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

It should go without saying that the nuances of what Paul was writing here have been explained and debated for centuries. Despite the glib rejoinders offered by Protestia and RC, the scholarship is not quite so clear.

We should note we are not here to defend Todd White, we intend to examine the responses of Protestia and RC.

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

Bad worship songs - Another in the fire - Chris Davenport, Joel Houston

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 good 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 as many as possible of 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
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Scripture quotes or allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness

Further, a worship song should not:

1. contain lyrics that create uncertainty or cause confusion
2. be excessively metaphorical
3. be excessively repetitive
4. imply that Jesus is 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 today's song "Another in the fire" (Youtube video). 

To be clear, the the song has a lot going for it. As is typical for Joel Houston songs, there is some depth and creative ways of expressing ideas. In fact, there are no egregiously offensive aspects at all. It's only the use of a single word that raises our ire: Reckoning. This word violates rule #1 above by creating uncertainty and confusion. It's not a commonly used word these days, and the colloquial use of the word is typically equated with guessing, or perhaps a educated estimation of a direction to take. The dictionary definition is

count; computation; calculation.

the settlement of accounts, as between two companies.

a statement of an amount due; bill.

an accounting, as for things received or done.

an appraisal or judgment.

Navigation. dead reckoning.

From these definitions it seems that an appraisal or judgment most closely fits what the songwriters were trying to say. From this would think that the intent is to convey a comparison between a former state as compared to evaluating the present status.

So, our point is that one should not be forced to consult a dictionary to try to discover what the songwriter was communicating. This is a congregational worship song, not a program piece. The former is an expression to God, the latter is a matter for contemplation.

Ok, Let's quote the lyrics:

Awash in holy moments - by Rob Mazza

Friends,

It’s been a slow, dry season for me to get free to write. It happens. The bulk of the year has been tied into teaching seven week modules on prophecy, creativity and deliverance. We are building in our local church for things now and to come. The joy has been to teach with two or three on the latter two. Last weekend we hosted Streams Creative House members and Tabernacle Diadem. Its purpose was to foster a beautiful space within and without to explore with God. The word beauty is now firmly implanted in my spirit as a vital attribute of God. More necessary today in such a graceless age. I spoke at the Creative Process and the Power of Words workshop. I thought I’d share the text with you in hopes your spirit would feel the movement.

How Did God Speak To You? - DEBBIELYNNE KESPERT

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

One thing cessationists frequently do is recycle old talking points. There is nothing new in the below article, nor is it even particularly insightful. Though we shall address a couple of things here and there, our main reason for posting it is that Ms. Kespert is remarkably gentle and kind. She doesn't attack or belittle like a lot of the Doctrinal Police do.

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

‘First Nations Version’ Bible Translation Released: Is It The Worst Ever? A Review - Staff Writer

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

"Staff Writer" seems to believe that Natives should think, talk, and act like European/Western whites. Or at least this is the implication. The fact that a Native Christian pastor would write a translation of the Bible that speaks to Native ways of understanding, uses Native concepts and language, and communicates ideas in the way that Natives understand and think, well, that's just beyond the pale.

And that's the crux of the issue. "Staff Writer" doesn't like Indian phraseology or Indian concepts. He thinks that accuracy must mean a highly literal translation of each word; more specifically, a literal translation in the exact same way these words have been translated in the past.

Ironically, the culture and ways of understanding of the ancient Jews don't always translate to our western culture. We undertake to educate ourselves in order to understand these expressions and ways of thinking, then make our best attempt to integrate them into our cultural context. That is, we have for centuries been doing the same thing "Staff Writer" is accusing Pastor Wildman of doing: Conforming the text to our culture. 

Unfortunately, "Staff Writer" doesn't want Natives to possess this privilege. They are not allowed to take Jewish concepts and adapt them to their culture. They have to do it the way white men do it.

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

Prayer ministry problems

Something that has increased in importance for me over the last number of years is how important prayer is. The more I pray the more I realize that what I am doing has great effect. This is not because of any merit I might have, but rather, I believe God honors the ones who persevere in prayer. It was what Jesus wanted:

Lk. 18:1 Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 

False Teacher Teacher of the Day #41: Lisa Bevere - By REFORMATION CHARLOTTE

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Perhaps Ms. Bevere is a false teacher. Perhaps she is the great evil Reformation Charlotte says she is. But if this is true, there ought to be many examples of this evil that can be documented.  After all, it justified the writing of an article, right?

But what does RC do? They nit-pick points of doctrine, and relatively minor ones at that. The level charges and make claims. The problem is, the standard for being deemed a false teacher is a high one. False teachers are egregious and public sinners, they are not people with whom you happen to disagree.

Astonishingly, RC can't even manage single Scripture quote. How does one refute a "false teacher" without quoting the Bible?

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

Joel Osteen’s evil gospel - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is our second article in a row regarding Osteen. It's not like Joel Osteen is not problematic. There are legitimate gripes about what he teaches. But Ms. Prata never quotes him, she merely quotes some other source that quotes him. She throws around accusations like mashed potatoes in a food fight. This reads like a hit piece, not an instruction in the ways of holiness, not an edifying explanation, not something that builds faith or increases understanding of salvation, God's character, or how to lead a life more pleasing to God. 

And that's too often the problem with the Doctrinal Police. They're more concerned with attacks and blasting supposed false teachers than they are interested in Kingdom matters. Sad.

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

Joel Osteen Claims Jacob Slept with Wrong Woman Because He Was Drunk - Staff Writer

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Hyperventilating Protestia goes catawampus on Joel Osteen for not saying what they thought he said. This is our continuing complaint about the Doctrinal Police. Looking diligently under every rock for perceived heresy, they go ballistic over the slightest deviation from what they consider pure doctrine.

We should say that there are many things Osteen has said that are problematic. But we are not here to defend him. Rather, we intend to examine Protestia's statements.

Protestia claims Osteen was "molesting" this Scripture, which is a hyperbolic characterization. Osteen is quoted as saying, "I can imagine Jacob went to bed that night with a little too much to drink." 

Now, even a casual reader can see that Osteen was speculating. "I can imagine..." is not the same as saying, "Jacob was drunk..." But more to the point, is Osteen introducing an egregiously offensive concept into the narrative? Well, no. Jewish wedding parties were big, prolonged affairs, lasting for days. They were boisterous, there was lots of drinking and dancing.

Protestia seems to have forgotten Jesus' first recorded miracle. Jn. 2:1-9 

On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.” 

4 “Dear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My time has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” 

6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. 7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim. 8 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.” They did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine.

Notice that the wedding had already been going on long enough to run out of wine. Jesus makes at least 120 gallons of wine. So this was a big wedding party. And Jesus made it possible for the party to continue. 

This means that Osteen's speculation is quite possible.

And really, have we become so inoculated to the details of Jacob's story as to not be amazed anymore? This man is to be given his wife, he spends the night with Leah and finds out the next morning that he slept with the wrong woman. How does such a thing happen? This is very unusual, and it simply doesn't follow that a man of Jacob's intelligence could have been fooled into sleeping with a different woman. Unless of course we consider the possibility that he was impaired. 

Further, we must consider that Jacob was a very flawed man. He tricked his brother into selling his birthright (Ge. 25:29). He participated in tricking his father Isaac in order to steal Esau's blessing (Ge. 27:8). He slept with Rachel's servant repeatedly (Ge. 30:2, Ge. 30:7). He made enemies of his brothers in law (Ge. 31:1) and his father in law (Ge. 31:49). He lied to Esau after reconciling with him (Ge. 33:17). 

So Jacob could well have been drunk. It is not so far-fetched as Protestia would like us to believe.

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

What does it mean to pray ‘Your Will Be Done’? - by Colin Smith

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

When a question like this is asked, we would think that a thorough examination would include consulting the Greek for meaning, considering the context of the surrounding verses, and comparing what we discover to the whole counsel of Scripture. However, the author creates categories based on his doctrinal perspective and restricts his presentation to that. This is unfortunate, for it is a rich question worthy of deep exploration.

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

Cessmaticism: The Strange Hybrid of Contemporary Christian Worship - by David de Bruyn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Th author obviously doesn't like contemporary worship styles, which of course is his choice to make. However, he writes nearly 1100 words about this "problem" of emotional worship, and doesn't cite, let alone quote a single Bible verse. He doesn't even bother to explain why it's a problem, or even make the case that old hymns are the solution.

His opinion is based on traditional practices and personal taste, nothing more. Yet he makes the issue into a significant issue, absent a biblical reason for doing so.

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

Questioning the validity of the right-wing/evangelical/"corporate" church - By Franz Wohlgemuth

Found here. Our comments in bold. 

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

It takes the author 2476 words to make his point. His rhetorical journey includes some interesting ideas, and some of it is worthy of receiving as a rebuke to certain parts of the contemporary church. In that we can agree.

But the author conflates politics with the contemporary church in a way that is what a left wing pagan (self-admitted) would do. He makes no distinction between cultural Christianity, Biblical Christianity, right-wingers, and fundamentalists. They are all the same thing to him. 

Oddly, the author finally gets to his summation, but asserts something unrelated to what he wrote up to that point: ...it doesn't matter what race, gender, orientation, faith... if you're a decent person, that's all that matters. Upon what basis the author makes this moral statement is unknown. He doesn't define "a decent person," nor does he tell us how someone would be determined to be decent or what should be done about a person deemed to be not decent or why it is good to be decent or expect others to be decent. 

Now, we would agree that there is value in being a decent person (according to our own morality, of course), but it's another matter entirely to suggest that Christianity is adequately replaced by the author's unstated version of decency. 

And it should seem obvious that the author appeals to decency in the context of what religion teaches is decent. Kindness, helpfulness, respect, hard work, mercy, and lawfulness are likely the kinds of things the author has in mind as examples of decency. But the only reason he knows these things are decent is because religion has said so. His moral precept is second hand.

Further, he doesn't he tell us why decency is all that matters. How does he know this? Why is this moral value important? Why should we accept it as true?

The author offers us a moral imperative without justifying its truth.

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

Rethink - Bible translation fail: Matthew 7:13-14

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.

Republican Operative Dr. Michael Brown Defending the Rich in the Name of Jesus - by Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The choleric Rev. Wade has been unusually productive of late, churning out verbiage at a prodigious rate. Quantity doesn't equal quality, of course. Rev. Wade has never been one to provide quality.

Today he takes aim at a favorite target, Dr. Michael Brown. A previous Rev. Wade attack on Dr. brown was analyzed last month. 

Rev. Wade rarely gets things right, including the title. Dr. Brown did not invoke the name of Jesus to defend the rich. Dr. Brown wrote an opinion piece about a political/economic topic, which apparently he isn't allowed to do. Why, we don't know.

Rev. Wade has nonsensical objections to the points Dr. Brown raises, all based on his political leftism. Yes, rev. Wade is a leftist, though he tries to disguise it to maintain credibility among the Doctrinal Police. And he is a shill for his politics while simultaneously criticizing Dr. Brown for doing the same.

We should remind the reader that we are not here to defend Dr. Brown, we intend to only analyze Rev. Wade's nonsense.

Lastly, we note that once again Rev. Wade cannot bring himself to quote Scripture, except for a single unattributed snippet.

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

Converting my 1967 Camaro to LS power - budget build - bonus episode

Episode one, purchase and bodywork.

Episode two, mechanicals and interior.

Episode three, final details and the finished car.

Bonus episode, LS conversion.

Double bonus episode, converting the 4L60e tailshaft housing to a mechanical speedo drive.

Triple bonus episode, the details leading up to the purchase of this car and what it meant.

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

This post is to chronicle the process by which I converted my 1967 Camaro from a 350/TH 350 to a 5.3 LS and a 4L60e. 

***

I got the bug to do the swap a couple of years ago. The LS upgrade gets me better starting, better driveability, more horsepower, and better economy. Plus the aftermarket upgrades available for the LS means a lot of future potential.

My objective was to do this project right, but also do it for as cheaply as possible. That means buying used parts that do not need major work, careful shopping, clever adaptations, and lots of research. I also wanted to accumulate as many of the parts I needed in advance, so that I could start and finish the project without having to chase down parts and wait for them to be delivered.

That last thing didn't work out so well, because it is impossible to know everything you will need until you are farther into the project. 

Also, the conversion process was a lot of work and frequently frustrating.  Every task seemed to be a struggle. "Easy" tasks often took hours. Custom-made parts too often needed to be re-worked. Parts that did not fit or were improperly constructed, fabricating adaptations from parts that were supposed to fit, accomplishing a task only to undo it because something else should have been done first... Very frustrating.

Having completed the project, would I do it again? Nope. I thought the aftermarket had this swap totally worked out, but that isn't the case. I did expect to work through some bugs, but for the most part this should have been a bolt-in swap. It wasn't.

The Car

My car is a base model convertible, which I purchased on eBay in 2007. Here's a purchase day photo of it:

It actually doesn't look too bad. At least on the surface. Originally I intended to build it incrementally by upgrading the 6 banger and putting brakes on it, then drive it around until it was time to dive deeply into it. But as most car guys know, mission creep is a real problem, especially when hidden problems are uncovered. It wasn't long before I had stripped down the car and started replacing the mangled quarter panels.

So it started as doing a slight upgrade and quickly became a ground up project. 

I think it came out pretty nice for a home build.

More Charismaniacal Nonsense - by Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The banal and truculent Rev. Wade is back at it, expending 1757 words (minus quoted material) in a vain search for a point. He is attempting explain his doctrine regarding tongues, and though he actually manages to quote a couple of relevant Scriptures, he negates other Scriptures in his attempt to explain.

The thing about this is, we actually agree with some of what Rev. Wade raises here, which is a surprisingly rare occurrence. But he prattles on and on, making all sorts of assertions and accusations, none of which come to bear on the matter at hand.

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

If you think direct revelation isn’t still an issue, it is - by Elizabeth Prata (the wrong definition of the wrong word from the wrong verse...)

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata too frequently appears on our blog, and we have reluctantly concluded she is a superficial thinker who parrots cessationist talking points rather than teach Bible truth. 

In today's post she answers a reader question, but provides a definition of a Greek word from the wrong Scripture. This kind of mistake is not befitting a supposed teacher of Scripture. But doing so serves her cessationist agenda.

She then proceeds on to attempt a novel explanation of Joel's prophecy, quoted by Peter in Acts chapter 2. She fails to even make sense.

This despite expending 949 words here (excluding Bible quotes and the question).

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

WOMEN PASTORS ARE A FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM FOR SOUTHERN BAPTISTS - by Gabriel Hughes

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author expends 4393 words (we've only posted an excerpt) attempting to explain a problem. But the problem isn't women pastors, it is CEO pastors. If a single person titled "pastor" is supposed to be the head of the local church we might agree with the author's premise. However, the biblical model is that the congregation is led by a plurality of elders (1Pe. 5:1-3), not a pastor. The author will constantly conflate the two in order to conform the Bible to his preconceptions.

In addition, he will embark on a long and errant explanation of why women can't be church leaders, based on two false perceptions, that the pastor is the leader, and preaching is exercising authority.

The string of reasoning the author will employ is

• Elders lead the church
• Pastors are elders
• Elders are men
• Pastors lead the church
• Pastors are men
• Women can't lead the church
• Women can't be pastors
• Pastors preach
• Preaching is exercising authority
• Women can't exercise authority
• Woman can't preach

Each of these contains either a misrepresentation or a leap of logic.

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

Fascinated by how the behavior of the people who took 3 pieces of pizza at a pizza party

 Posted by a FB friend:

Transcript: Fascinated by how the behavior of the people who took 3 pieces of pizza at a pizza party because they thought it would run out and the people who took 1 piece for the exact same reason is such a perfect encapsulation of American beliefs about community.

Apparently this person is making a statement about greedy rich people taking more than their fair share of the nation's wealth, which means others, the poor, are deprived of what they are owed. And this has something to do with community, and that community (communism?) is violated by people who take too much.

The Left seems particularly bad at constructing analogies, mostly because they build on false premises. An analogy only works when the underlying assumptions are true.

What is the doctrine of eternal Sonship and is it biblical? - gotquestions.org

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We plunge into this issue with some reservations. This is one of those doctrinal issues that has nothing of benefit for the average Christian. The eternal status of Jesus, whether as the Son or as the Word became flesh, is completely irrelevant to living a life of faith and obedience, bearing fruit, being generous, sharing the gospel, and loving one another. It appears here because we felt the need to point out the inadequacies of gotquestions.org's presentation.

In addition, we need to understand that the triune God exists above and beyond time. As such, it is almost fruitless to ascertain what and when God did things at a point in time. So these efforts to establish if and when the status of the Son changed almost become irrelevant. 

Is Jesus' status as the Son an eternal status? Yes. Did He become the Son at His incarnation? Yes. The coexistence of two seemingly contradictory things make up a paradox, which the western mind is compelled to attempt to resolve. See our discussion of Bible paradoxes here.

We should mention that we really don't have a dog in this fight, although we would tend to lean toward incarational sonship. Jesus' eternal status may indeed be the Son. This would not exclude the idea that He was known as the Word, became flesh (Jn. 1:14). Either way, He is savior of the world, the lamb of God, and the lion of the tribe of Judah, the uncreated creator.

Lastly, the author will make summary statements based solely on inference at least five times, for which we have added emphasis. This is a notably weak way of ascertaining doctrine. Also, the author uses the word "simply" six times in this article, as if the matter is not complex. If it is simple, then we shouldn't have to infer so much.

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

How capitalism made the world sick. - By Sarah Jones

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Here we have another "progressive" attempting to explain economics. Nearly all progressives and leftists begin with a caricature of capitalism, building their entire world view on a lie. They compound the lie by suggesting that progressivism/socialism, or some part of socialism, is the solution.

Capitalism is simply the willing, legal, eyes-open exchange of value. Anything illegal, shady, or exploitative is a violation of capitalism, not features of it. 

The agitprop component of socialism is particularly effective among those who have already accepted the false premise of the caricature of capitalism. A typical leftist will plunge headlong into any pronouncement, factoid, or narrative promulgated by the leftist machine.

The below article is just such a thing.

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

Socialist magazine founder fires staff for socialist organizing, confesses he felt ownership of what he'd made - by JOHN SEXTON

Found here. 

We have commented a number of times on Mr. Robinson's writings, and invariably found he is a superficial thinker, verbose and cocky about things he clearly doesn't understand. So it is with a certain satisfaction that we post this article, because we are convinced that deep down, socialists do not really believe their own rhetoric. They may emphatically espouse their socialism, but live like corporatists. They are theorists, but where the real world butts up against their theories, they privately acquiesce to the real world.

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

For Whom Did Christ Die? - by Daniel R. Hyde

Found here. Our comments in bold.

This author is going to attempt to explain the "L" from the calvinistic TULIP - Limited Atonement. Not only will he fail, but he will end up misrepresenting the Bible in an egregious way.

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

In the last days... We take a brief look at the last days and the Day of The Lord

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.

Want to Be an Elder? Start Eldering Now. - by BOBBY JAMIESON

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a curious article. One one hand there is a good deal of useful information here. But on the other hand the author does not discuss the role of elders in the church or even define the word. He quotes Scripture numerous times, but does not quote any Scripture at all that mentions elders. 

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

When "Socialism" destroyed our democracy... Faceborg meme

 Posted by a FB friend:

It seems to us that the vulgar summary dismissal contained in this meme is inappropriate, since it is certainly true that these programs are bankrupting us. 

First, let's define socialism. The classic definition of socialism is the state ownership of  the means of production. There is a three-faced rebuttal offered by the political Left

1. they will deny we have any aspect of socialism because of the classic definition - the government doesn't own the means of production. 
2. they will extoll the virtues of socialism by claiming that socialism is already at work, naming Social Security, the GI Bill, and fire and police departments as expressions of Socialism.
3. while asserting socialism is at work in society, they blame all the economic woes on capitalism. 

We would assert that aspects of socialism are indeed at work in our society, and are in fact the reason we have huge deficits and staggeringly huge economic wealth transfers that have solved nothing. 

Further, government no longer needs to own the means of production to push the socialistic agenda, for controlling the means of production is a defacto ownership. And, there are certain corporations who are happily doing the government's bidding: suppressing speech, censoring debate, and punishing those who don't hold to The Narrative. Thus, government doesn't need to own what it controls.

This goes well beyond the legislative control of the processes of factories and businesses, it includes taxing productivity. Not only does government lay claim to a percentage of a business's income, it does this with each worker as well. This carries an implicit assumption that government has a right to that money. So both a business and a worker's means of production is being taken from them, which as a matter of logic means their money does not belong to them. Therefore, if the result of someone's labor production does not belong to him, the government owns it and simply decides how much it wants to take.

Government has no money of its own, so it must engage in taxation to fund its operations. Those operations which allocate taxed money to beneficiaries (the poor, the retired, the sick) are redistributions, i.e. money taken from one person and given to another. And redistribution is at the heart of socialism.