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 - the narrow gate

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.

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