The Many-Tentacled Kraken of Present-Day Fascism - By Wayne Madsen

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Madsen doesn't seem to know what fascism is. Nor does he understand the irony of his own position being fascistic.

Fascism has morphed in meaning to the point where the term is meaningless. The way the author uses it, fascism is simply people doing things or thinking things he doesn't like. The fact that he wants to edit, control, shut down, or manipulate dissenters is fascistic.

As you read this you will find a stream-of-consciousness spew of words which is intended to mean something, but it is impossible to determine what. Mr. Madsen simply mentions a person (Steve Bannon, for example) without any explanation, then connects the person to another random name (Guo Wengui, for example), and leaves it to the reader to try to figure out why these names are important and how they're connected.

The sheer meaninglessness of this article is in itself boggling.

 Mr. Madsen is generally recognized as an out-there conspiracy theorist. 

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

When the wrath of God was poured out for our sins, was the Son of God separated from the Trinity? - Michael Reeves - Ask Ligonier

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This contradictory and superficial answer is largely useless. Mr. Reeves appears confused. And, he doesn't bother with the Bible.

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

The trouble with capitalism - by Edward Feser

Found here. A great presentation.

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


It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. (Matthew 19:24)

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? (Mark 8:36)

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

When people use or hear the word “capitalism,” some of the things they might bring to mind are:

1. The institution of private property, including private ownership of the basic means of production

2. Market competition

3. The existence of corporations as legal persons

4. Inequalities in wealth and income

5. An economic order primarily oriented to the private sector, with government acting at the margins and only where necessary

Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with any of those things. Indeed, some of them (such as private property and a government that respects subsidiarity) are required as a matter of natural law. Eliminating all economic inequalities (as opposed to remedying poverty, which is a very different matter) is neither possible nor desirable. The concept of the corporate person has long been recognized by, and regarded as salutary within, the natural law tradition (whatever one thinks about its instantiation in modern business corporations). Socialism in the strict sense, which would centralize the most fundamental economic decision-making, is intrinsically evil.

On the other hand, other people using or hearing the term “capitalism” might have in mind things like:

6. A doctrinaire laissez-faire mentality that is reflexively hostile to all governmental economic intervention

7. The market as the dominant social institution, with an ethos of consumerism and commodification of everything as its sequel

8. Corporations so powerful that they are effectively unanswerable to government or public opinion

9. Doctrinaire minimalization or even elimination of social welfare institutions, even when there is no feasible private sector alternative

10. Globalization of a kind that entails dissolution of corporate and individual loyalties to the nation-state and local communities.

Now, all of these things are bad and should be opposed on natural law grounds.

How Does America Solve Its "Fake News" Crisis?- By Thom Hartmann

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Typical leftist obfuscation. The author doesn't even understand what fake news is, preferring to conflate and divert until it is impossible to know what his point is.

We weren't able to finish reading this screed. The author goes on and on complaining about evil right wingers who are simply doing what the Left has done for decades. Tthe author is engaging in Mountain Man's Law. Everything he tells us about the Republicans is something the Left is actually doing.

The author is blissfully unaware that he is fake news, that is, someone who disseminates information designed to manipulate, not inform. So to "solve" the problem, he should stop writing.

And by the way, why is it America's problem to solve? Of course he means government. Ever the leftist, the "solution" is government. But government has no authority to make any law regarding free speech:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

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

What Is The Value of “Intellectual Diversity”? - by Nathan J. Robinson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

These 2203 words are a muddled mess of logical leaps and bare assertions. We refer the reader to several critiques we have made of Mr. Robinson's "superior" rhetorical and reasoning skills.

Mr. Robinson is an elitist, entirely convince of his intellectual and moral superiority. Thus intellectual diversity is a waste of time because all other viewpoints are inferior. He's already right, he's already determined the correct way of thinking, which makes other points of view stupid if not irrelevant.

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

Guest column: Juneteenth and the fight against an inclusive history - By Meshayla Cox and Chris Young-Greer, Guest columnists

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is another leftist activism organization given a platform by the Chronicle. We previously commented on another leftist activism organization given space by the Chronicle. Astonishingly, the two organizations are connected. Even more astonishing, the Bozeman Public Library is in the mix.

These sorts of incestuous relationships are part of the strategy. The idea is to make it seem like it's a giant coalition of people, part of a popular movement where everyone is getting on board. But in actual fact it's a handful of discontented people sitting in someone's basement with an internet connection and a laptop.)

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

Are Arminians saved? - by R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have a hard time understanding these Calvinists sometimes. They love to speculate on the salvation of people. Somehow they know exactly the status of an entire class of Christians, a class they created and placed people in. Few people would say, "I'm an Arminian," or "I'm a Calvinist." But people like R.C. Sproul assign unnamed and unknown people to one of these two categories and from there determine their salvation. And they know there are only two categories.

Not that we would expect it in this short clip, but there is no Scripture cited. We mention this because the Doctrinal Police are terribly reluctant to quote Scripture, no matter the length of their polemic. 

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

Bethel Leader Bill Johnson Denies Scripture – ‘God Doesn’t Control Everything’

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

The author has a substantial opportunity to discuss an important area of theology, but simply punts with a summary denial. He quotes a Scripture (a rare occurrence for the Doctrinal Police), but doesn't do any exposition or even deal with the issues Johnson raises.

If the author thinks that God is absolutely sovereign, in the sense that nothing at all happens anywhere at any time without Him directly causing it, that raises a whole lot of issues, including

• What is the purpose of existence if every single thing is already caused by God
• What is the purpose of salvation if nothing happens apart from God's action
• What is the purpose of evil, since God must have caused it
• What is the purpose of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection if none of these things has an effect on the outcome of God's plan
• What is the purpose of evangelism if it doesn't change anything God has purposed

If God is sovereign in this sense, then the Gospel is meaningless, life is meaningless, and the Bible is meaningless.

However, if there is an element of free will, if certain things happen that can be contrary to God's purpose, if God isn't to blame for evil and disaster, then the author needs to explain. But he doesn't.

The author would also need to explain these Scriptures:

Ac. 7:51 “You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

Lk. 10:41-42 “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and

upset about many things, 42 but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”

Jn. 5:35 John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light.

Mt. 4:17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”

Jn. 5:14 Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.”

Ro. 14:19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

He. 4:11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no-one will fall by following their example of disobedience.

A truly sovereign God would have the power to allow things to happen without those things impeding His sovereignty. Reducing His sovereignty to simply binary equation makes God subject to human logic and reasoning. This is not sovereignty.

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

One of the Earliest (and Clearest) Summaries of Early Christian Beliefs - by Michael Kruger

Found here. Very interesting.

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

A common claim among critics of Christianity is that early Christian doctrine was a bit of a mess. What we believe now—about the incarnation, divinity of Jesus, etc.—was a late development within the early Christian movement. And, so the implication goes, the earliest Christians did not necessarily believe the same things as later Christians.

Now, it must be said that such a criticism is partly true. The early Christian movement was not monolithic, to be sure. There was quite a bit of theological diversity, and it took a few generations to work out some of the kinks. I cover this doctrinal diversity in my book Christianity at the Crossroads: How the Second Century Shaped the Future of the Church (IVP Academic, 2018).

Even so, I think we can see the seeds of many of our core doctrines at a remarkably early point. Yes, it took time to develop these ideas. But it doesn’t seem like they were late impositions on the church as is so often claimed.

False Teacher of the Day #19: Joseph Prince - By REFORMATION CHARLOTTE

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We do not intend to defend Joseph Prince, we shall examine the author's deficient presentation. Further, if Joseph Prince is a false teacher, the author never gets around to actually demonstrating it or teaching us the correct view.

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

Active Submission - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Unfortunately, Dr. MacArthur abandons scriptural documentation at key points, and barely manages to quote Scripture at all.

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

The New Evangelical False Gospel of Unity - By REFORMATION CHARLOTTE

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This article is a blizzard of assertions, half-formed thoughts, and superficial Bible exposition. The cowardly author, hiding behind the Reformation Charlotte moniker, doesn't bother to explain the nature of true Christian unity. He doesn't seem able to write a coherent narrative that develops an idea to a rational conclusion.

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

What can women do on stage during church services? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Nearly 1000 words, and only a single Scripture quote. In addition, Ms. Prata states a principle with exceptions and provisos that not only do not make sense, they are not based on any Scriptural principle. 

We cannot find the words to express our astonishment regarding the contents of this article. It is worthless to answer the question asked in the title. But worse than that, Ms. Prata does not seem to be rational. The categories and exceptions defy logic.

We would not trust her to explain anything regarding the faith or the Bible.

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

The Mailbag: Potpourri (Was John a prophet?...) - By Michelle Lesley

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

Somehow this "Bible teacher" manages to avoid quoting any Scripture.

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