What Must I Do to Be Saved? - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We were filled with hearty amens as we read Ms. Lesley's explanation of the Gospel. Until close to the end, where she writes two erroneous things. The first, 

The gift God offers you is that, on the cross, Christ took the punishment you deserve for your sin.

This is a false and pernicious statement. There is no Bible verse that says Jesus substituted for us. None. Nor did the Father did not punish Jesus. Ever. To state otherwise is to completely misunderstand (or misrepresent) Jesus' sacrificial death. There isn't a single verse in the Bible that tells us the Father punished Jesus or poured out His wrath on Him. Not one. Check it yourself, dear reader.

The first thing we need to note is typology. The OT sacrifice is a type (or illustration) of a greater truth, Jesus' one sufficient sacrifice.

It is important to note the OT animals:

• were not tortured to satisfy the priest
• were never imputed with the sacrificer's sin
• did not receive God's wrath
• were not regarded as substitutes

Similarly,

• Jesus was not tortured to satisfy the Father
• Jesus was not imputed with our sin 
• Jesus did not receive God's wrath
• Jesus did not substitute Himself in our place

Jesus carried (Greek: anapheró), He took, He bore away our sin as a burden to the cross:

He. 9:28: ...so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

He didn't "bear" our sin as in "bear" our punishment, He carried it away. He was sacrificed, not sacrificed and then punished. 

His work is described in the Bible as the propitiation for our sin: 

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

"Propitiation" is the Greek word hilaskomai, which means appeasement/satisfaction of divine wrath on sin") – properly, to extend propitiation, showing mercy by satisfying (literally, propitiating) the wrath of God on sin; "to conciliate, appease, propitiate... 

Jesus's death on the cross, His spilled blood, is the effective agent in His propitiation:

Col. 1:19-20 For God was pleased to have all his fulness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

So Jesus by spilling His blood appeased the wrath of God, turning away what God was going to do in righteous judgment to sinners. By the spilled blood the Father was completely satisfied. Jesus' work was sufficient and totally efficacious. Any man who comes under the blood finds that the Father's wrath against him has been appeased.

The blood is enough. Nothing else. Period. Including the punishment of Jesus. 

If God's wrath against the sinner is totally appeased by Jesus' blood when he repents, why do some think that His wrath must be poured out somewhere else, i.e., on Jesus? This is the crucial question, and why we began with our assertion that the Father did not punish Jesus for our sin.

Read this carefully: If the Father punished Jesus for our sin, then He didn't forgive at all, He simply redirected his wrath and carried it out anyway.

The second glaringly false statement made by Ms. Lesley:

The way you receive that gift and have Christ’s righteousness “credited to your account” is to repent from (have the heart desire to turn away from and ask God’s forgiveness for) your sin and trust that Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection paid the penalty for your sin.

Jesus did not pay the penalty for our sins, He paid for us:

1Co. 6:19-20 You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. 

1Co. 7:23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

In fact, we were condemned to death already:

Ro. 5:16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 

Jn. 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already...

This means Jesus paid no penalty for our sin, rather, His death and resurrection propitiated for our sin and brought us from death to life, lifting our condemnation: 

Ro. 8:1-2 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.

Ms. Lesley must not be allowed to misrepresent any part of the Gospel, especially regarding the nature and character of God.

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

The problems with being a Calvinist

Introduction

Calvinism is a set of doctrines derived from John Calvin's teaching in the 1500s. Calvin was a pastor and theologian, dedicated to the ideas of the Reformation while having his own doctrines as well. He was and is a controversial figure, not only because of his doctrines but also because of his often severe way of dealing with theological dissenters.

Over the centuries Calvinism has insinuated itself almost everywhere. Even churches that would claim to be non-Calvinist hold some Calvinist views, likely unawares. So we view it as important that we understand the problems of Calvinism, and as needed amend our beliefs accordingly.

Calvinism is roughly described with the acronym TULIP (aka, the doctrines of grace):

• (T)otal depravity
• (U)nconditional election
• (L)imited atonement
• (I)rresistible grace
• (P)erseverance of the saints

Total Depravity is the idea that we are not able to participate in our salvation. We cannot make a decision for Christ. God accomplishes 100% of our salvation without our participation in any way.

Unconditional election means that God already chose and predestined who would be saved. The elect are destined for salvation, and everyone else is destined for hell.

Limited atonement is that the atoning work of Jesus applies only to the elect and does not apply to those who are not chosen.

Irresistible grace means the elect cannot resist their salvation, they must be saved.

Perseverance of the saints means that because the elect are chosen they cannot fall away from the faith.

In summary, because we are depraved, there is nothing at all that would allow us to participate in our salvation. We do not yield to God and agree with Him that We need salvation. Our salvation is already chosen for us. God is sovereign and unconditionally elected us, so we don't have a choice because of irresistible grace.  Only the elect are saved, because the atonement only covers the elect. We can't fall away if we're among the elect, because once we are saved we are always saved.

Since the purpose of this post is not to evaluate Calvinistic doctrines, we refer the reader to our many doctrinal critiques here, along with the Scriptural support for our positions.

Rehabilitating ministers? Why churches and organisations need to be careful about the idea of 'restoring' their leaders - by Andrew Roycroft

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

It has been said that the Church is the only organization that shoots her wounded. Or in this case, even if it heals the wounded it still treats them as wounded. The transformative power of the Holy Spirit that brings new life to the condemned soul apparently cannot operate in a fallen pastor. 

However, we believe the idea that a church leader, having done particular sins, is permanently disqualified from ministry is not a Biblical one. We are not saying that restoration ought to be quick, universal, or without conditions or careful consideration. But such a person, faced with the situation where he can never, under any circumstances, be completely cleared of charges, might understandably never bother with the littler repentances required of him. Really, what good would it do to clean up one's life (or even, be renewed by the Holy Spirit) with no prospect of obtaining one's calling, or perhaps even a higher one?

Now, it might be years or even decades before a person might be restored, but in any case we should not deal with these things like the world does. Further, we should have the discernment to ascertain the quality of fruit of the truly repentant church leader:

Matt 7:17-20 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20So then, by their fruit you will recognize them.

A repentant sinner who consistently bears good fruit for a long time must at some point be relieved of his scarlet letter.

But more important to us is the unwarranted and unbiblical high and lofty position most pastors occupy. Churches are to be led by a council of elders (1 Peter 5:1-3). If we want fewer pastoral failures, we should reform the unbiblical idea of a CEO pastor.

Also, the author writes over 1700 words, but not a single Scripture quote, and but a single (irrelevant) Scripture reference. We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Bad worship songs: When wind meets fire - by Gamboa, Holiday, Mooring, Furtick (Elevation Worship)

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song, When Wind Meets fire.

"Pastors Only Work 30 Minutes A Week” - by Michael Krahn

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

This article smacks of self-aggrandizement. Here we have a noble, selfless pastor laboring away under a great burden, called to selfless service, who is the only one in his church able to carry these responsibilities and endure these hardships. And it seems the congregation simply doesn't appreciate him enough. 

"To all of this, pastors are called," he writes.

Oh, please. If one consults the Bible, one will not find any of these duties or privileges explained, or even mentioned, regarding pastors. The biblical fact of the matter is that pastors don't lead churches, the elders do (1 Peter 5:1-3). 

This is not to diminish the efforts of well-meaning, though probably misguided pastors like the author. We appreciate these men for their devotion, but we would suggest they embrace a more biblical view of church leadership and let the elders and deacons share the load and lead the church.

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

Friendship With the World is Enmity with God - by Mike Ratliff

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

The author attempts to explain James 4:4, but doesn't get around to it until the second to the last paragraph. After hundreds of words devoted to tangents, he supplies us but a single line of explanation:

It is doing whatever it takes to imitate worldly ways of thinking and worldly activities. 

He goes on to provide a very appropriate remedy, thankfully, but does not explain how the remedy works out practically. This is really what he should have written about.

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

1 Timothy: Women Preaching as Pastor or as a Guest Violates Scripture, even with “Permission” - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata, like so many Bible teachers who consider this topic, imposes upon Scripture things that are not there. The Scripture in question is 1 Timothy 2:11-12, which Ms. Prata does actually quote: 

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

Ordinarily those who approach this Scripture do so by forcing it into the context of a church service. They do this by thinking the epistle is "pastoral," that is, instructions on how to pastor a church. This is false, because Timothy wasn't pastor of this church, he was a troubleshooter sent by Paul. Otherwise Paul would not tell him that the elders direct the affairs of the church (1Ti. 5:17). 

Why is this important? Well, if this is not a "pastoral" epistle, then the instructions given by Paul are not telling Timothy how to run the church. But if Ms. Prata can place all of the epistle into the church service, it allows her to assert that Paul was forbidding women to preach in church. 

Because Timothy wasn't a pastor, then Paul was not telling him about how to prevent women from preaching in a church service. In fact, in 1 Timothy chapter 2 there is no hint in this passage that Paul was dealing with church structure at all. He doesn't breach the topic of leadership until the next chapter. It is actually quite clear that Paul was not dealing with a church service, first because he refers to "a woman," and "a man," not "women" and "men;" and second because his justification for this submission is Adam and Eve (vs. 13), which is a marriage relationship, not a church service. 

Because of the mistaken idea that this is about a church service, Ms. Prata extends the error by raising the issue of pastoral authority, i.e. the pastor as the leader cannot give permission to do an unbiblical thing like allowing women to preach. Since we believe that Paul was not talking about women preaching in church, this point of course is moot. 

But arising from the issue of church authority is the false idea that teaching IS exercising authority. Ms. Prata writes:

"[Scripture] denies a woman the ecclesiastical authority to teach men or be an authority in the church. (1 Timothy 2:12.)"

The only way one could arrive at such a conclusion is to inflate the role of pastor to the singular leader of the local church. And because the pastor preaches, this is exercising authority because the pastor is the boss. Thus a woman preaching is exercising authority. Thus women can't preach.

So the error compounds. 

Let's solve the problem. 

• Paul wasn't talking about what happens in a church service, he was telling us about what a woman cannot do to her husband. Thus Adam and Eve. 
• Pastors, biblically speaking, do not lead churches, elders do:

1Pe. 5:1-2 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers...

• Preaching, therefore, is not an exercise of authority.

The blight of CEO pastors - 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.

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

Bad worship songs: Fullness, by Steve Furtick, Chris Brown, Matthews Ntele

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song, Fullness.

Video here.

Is there Injustice on God’s Part? - by Mike Ratliff

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

The author didn't write this article to teach about the Bible, he wrote it to teach about his Calvinism. He thinks it is critical to understand the Calvinistic doctrine of election, but he doesn't tell us why it is important. You see, whether we are saved by His sovereign choice or if we are saved because we responded to His invitation, it doesn't make any difference at all in our lives or Christian walk. 

But the bottom line is that election is a doctrine that makes the mistake of including ourselves in the election of the remnant of Israel. We will explain this below.

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

Can Women Serve as Deacons? (Arguments for and Against) by: Matt Smethurst

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

This is a very good article in that it accurately explains two viewpoints on this topic. We have dealt with some of these points, plus some additional information here.

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

For by grace you have been saved through faith - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We think Mr. Ratliff is misunderstanding Jesus' teaching on the narrow door (gate). His understanding is a common idea among Christians, likely arising from Reformed doctrine/Calvinism. The belief is that there won't be many saved, based partly on the idea that there will be a last days apostasy with a lot of phony Christians who are not true followers. The narrow door/gate fits right in with this idea. 

We think it is wrong, however. What happens with interpreting these passages is one of the main reasons we embarked on our Doctrinal Rethink. We began to see that too often the Bible translators don't translate words correctly, or they carry preconceptions, which leads us to false doctrines and false teaching.

Here's the first passage:

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Mt. 7:13-14 (NIV)

First, we always must consider the context and the audience. Jesus was speaking to His fellow Jews. We should resist the urge to insert ourselves into the narrative. This is not about us.

"Narrow" (the narrow gate) in verse 13 is stenos, which the NIV translators correctly render. But "narrow" (narrow the road) in the next verse is a different Greek word, thlibó, to press, afflict... I make narrow (strictly: by pressure); I press upon, (b) I persecute, press hard. To translate both words as "narrow" implies Jesus was repeating his thought but He wasn't. The word thlibó carries a completely different thought. 

Notice the present-ness of this. We believe Jesus was speaking of what was happening right at that moment. Literally, of those who were listening to him, not many were finding the way of life He was telling them about. Few are those...  "Are" is eiemi, the present tense. Again, we need to clearly understand the target of Jesus' comments. Few of His fellow Jews are traveling through the narrow gate because it is difficult, and in fact, being a Jew isn't good enough.

Some translations convey the meaning better:

ESV For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

NKJV Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

NLT: "But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it."

CSB: "How narrow is the gate and difficult the road that leads to life, and few find it."

The crux of our thesis is that Jesus is particularly talking about a hard journey. And, the two words translated “narrow” in verse by the NIV are two different Greek words.

We think the NIV translators engage in an egregious mistranslation of the word, which changes the whole meaning.

The second passage sort of expands the idea:

Lk. 13:23-23 Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” He said to them, 24 “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, `Sir, open the door for us.’ “But he will answer, `I don’t know you or where you come from.’ 26 “Then you will say, `We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ 27 “But he will reply, `I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’ 

28 “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29 People will come from east and west and north and south and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30 Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.” NIV

This opens with someone specifically asking about salvation: Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?

We can say with certainty that this question was not about gentiles. Jews considered the salvation of God to be for Israel only. So the question is a Jewish question. "Jesus, you have been preaching a new way, and we don't understand. Please explain. Are you really saying only a few of us going to be saved?"

The questioner was probably catching on to the idea that this gospel Jesus was preaching meant that not every Jew was going to be saved. This would be a startling revelation to the typical Jew, who would consider himself to be part of the chosen nation as a son of Abraham.

Jesus answered him, that the door is narrow, and many will try and fail to enter. Who are these that fail to enter? Jesus tells them directly: We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets. He was talking to and about Jews. They would consider themselves brothers, but they are the ones Jesus never knew.

Jesus' countrymen will be told that He did not know them.

John references this reality:

Jn. 1:11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

"His own" are the Jews. They did not recognize Him or receive Him. Paul explained why:

Ro. 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

At this very time Jesus was speaking there were not many Jews who accepting His message, they were not entering in the narrow door. It's narrow because only a few of God's chosen people were entering this "new and living way" (He. 10:20). 

Jesus was speaking to specifically to Israel. That's the obvious context. He was speaking to His listeners, and His listeners were Jewish. So how would they understand it? They would recognize that He was speaking to their current situation. Thus He essentially was saying, "Here I am, and not many of you are taking me up on what I offer."

He goes on to explain that from every corner of the earth the "last" (that is, the gentiles) will take their places at the feast, and the Jews (the "first") will be the last.

Jesus speaks something that must have surprised His hearers: The most righteous-seeming Jews they knew of would not enter the Kingdom.

Mt. 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

So this was a teaching specifically aimed at the Jews, who would largely reject Him and have their house left to them desolate (Mt. 23:38).

Jesus was speaking to His contemporaries, He is addressing His audience; they are the ones who only a few were choosing the difficult road. The "few" are those Jews who received the Gospel, while the rest will be shut out. Therefore, we would say that Matt. 7:13-14 and Lk. 13:23-3 teach different aspects of the same idea - - and it has nothing to do with just a few being saved. 

Jesus' heart was first for His people, the Jews, and they were rejecting Him. This is how we should understand these passages. 

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

Where Have All the Spiritual Gifts Gone? - by Richard B. Gaffin Jr.

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

The author references many Scriptures, but only manages to quote snippets of three relevant verses. But those Scriptures don't bolster his position, rather, he derives his position first and attempts to make them fit.

The author's entire case rests on inference and supposition. We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

Lastly, the author never answers the question. "All" the spiritual gifts are not gone, only prophecy and tongues it seems. He never even discusses this, but focuses solely on these two gifts, likely because of their "supernatural" nature. However, all spiritual gifts are supernatural empowerments by definition.

And, apostleship is not a spiritual gift, apostles are appointed by God (1Co. 12:28).

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

There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus - by Mike Ratliff

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

This is a truly perplexing presentation. Even with the plain text in front of him Mr. Ratliff keeps to his narrative. He correctly notes what a particular verse is explaining, then inexplicably tacks on in his Reformed/Calvinist doctrines as if we should blindly accept them. 

There is a veneer of scholarship here, but don't be fooled. Mr. Ratliff is teaching his doctrine, not the Bible.

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

Stop asking about a Biden “cover-up” - by Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Astonishingly, Dr. Reich sticks hard and fast to The Narrative, even though what he previously denied was happening with Biden's cognition has now attained the status of common knowledge. 

But to him it's still "so-called" and "alleged." 

He's spinning with all his might, trying to avoid acknowledging that we had a president that was incompetent to lead the nation, and he particpated in the gaslighting. Dr. Reich wants to talk about anything else. Particularly if it gives him an excuse to blast Trump again.

Dr. Reich is a calculating liar. He's sold his soul to The Agenda, and likely doesn't have any idea how ridiculous he sounds. Someone needed to tell Biden to stop, and someone needs to tell Dr. Reich to stop. 

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

THEOLOGY JOLT - ARE THESE REALLY "THE LAST DAYS" ? - by Cindye Coates

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

This was posted by a Faceborg friend. It's an interpretation that's new to us so let's examine it. Analysis at the end.

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

The Biden Scandal Goes Well Beyond the Aging Cover-Up - Jeet Heer

Found here. This far, far Leftist gets real about the continuing deception regarding President Biden's mental decline, which is quite astonishing. 

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

Democrats have long needed an honest reckoning with Joe Biden’s failed presidency, which ended with his humiliating decision to abandon his reelection bid at nearly the last possible moment in July 2024—which in turn led to a hobbled campaign by Kamala Harris, and Donald Trump’s return to the White House. A disaster on that scale calls for at least some self-reflection. When dealing with a collective entity such as a political party, the minimum demand should be a thoroughgoing autopsy.

What Does a Discerning Person Do? - by Tim Challies

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Tim Challies is a cessationist, which is a person who believes the "supernatural" gifts of the Spirit ceased after the death of the last Apostle. Yet he provides a very complete and very "supernatural" definition of this spiritual gift, the gift of discernment.

We should first note that all spiritual gifts are supernatural, not just gifts like prophecy, tongues, or healing. All spiritual gifts are Holy Spirit empowerments. The gift of hospitality is just as supernatural as the gift of miraculous powers. There is no difference, spiritually speaking. We should therefore be clear that the existence of any spiritual gift is evidence that the Holy Spirit still moves miraculously in the Church today.

If there is an inadequacy in Mr. Challies' explanation it would be he lacks an explanation of the use of the gift of discernment in discerning prophecy. Doubtless he doesn't believe in contemporary prophecy, but nevertheless the gift of discernment definitely comes to bear here:

1Co. 14:29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.

Our only other complaint is that Mr. Challies identifies seven categories of discernment, but only one is documented with Scripture. This is a serious fault.

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

Letter to the editor: Use of term 'illegal alien' diminishes fellow human beings - by Julia Shaida

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This letter writer regurgitates the typical leftist slogans, but she clearly hasn't thought about the issue past what she's read on some leftist website. A little bit of independent investigation might perhaps lead her to more relevant and correct information, such as

Longstanding Supreme Court precedent recognizes Congress as having “plenary” power over immigration, giving it almost complete authority to decide whether foreign nationals ( “aliens,” under governing statutes and case law) may enter or remain in the United States.

We don't wish to be disrespectful, but Ms. Shaida simply doesn't know what she's talking about.
----------------------

Is God Still Giving Men Revelation Today? - by Cooper Abrams

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

The author correctly describes revelation as "general" (the testimony of creation) and "special" (The things God speaks). However, he labors under the false idea that "special revelation" is synonymous with Scripture. This presumption, never documented, means he never gets to the point of even discussing the gift of prophecy.

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

This Executive Order Reveals the Trump-Musk Endgame - by Elie Mystal

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Mystal is a flame-thrower. Nothing else. He's not informative, thoughtful, or explanatory. He's not even reasonable. He has his template, which is that everything is about race, his race. He's a regurgitator of leftist talking points and bumper sticker slogans.

We have previously commented on his writing here and here.

Here's the list of the name-calling from today's article, perpetrated by Mr. Mystal:

authoritarian

misogynists 

provable racists

Hatred of:

• gay people
• trans people
• Latino people
• Muslim people
• truth
• science
• journalism
• fact-based reality

criminal junta

running a kleptocracy

fascism

megalomaniacal populists

exceptional thieves

lazy

powers of a king

stealing entire elections

That is his primary technique, to overwhelm the reader with incessant accusations and pejorative labeling. But while wading through the name-calling and leftist talking points is certainly difficult, tracking with the "logic" is even more so. Because government is his god, any cut whatsoever is unacceptable. Thus he finds himself in the position of defending unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats even while acknowledging they are obstacles to a free society. 

Further, it's certainly odd that a president devoted to cutting government spending and eliminating entire government departments could be accused of authoritarianism and accumulating power. But such is the mind of a Leftist.

Lastly, the real thrust of Mr. Mystal's screed is that he resents the fact that Republicans are in power, which means the Democrats lack the ability to enrich themselves by manipulating government power. That is, he's accusing Republicans of doing the very things his side has done for decades.

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

Justice and Unconditional Forgiveness - by John MacArthur

Found here.

We have frequently taken issue with Dr. MacArthur's suspect teaching, but today we are happy to celebrate a very good article.

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

Does Prayer Change Things? - by Tim Challies, excerpted from Sam Storms

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

At 625 words this article is too short. Not because it needs to explain more, but because it needs to document its claims. There are no Bible verses quoted, and the two referenced Bible verses are not even about prayer.

How is it possible to teach the Bible without quoting it? We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

What Sam Storms wrestles with is the cognitive dissonance between his Calvinistic beliefs and the biblical reality. The Calvinist thinks that God's sovereignty means He is required to determine the outcome of everything in advance. Thus he believes that prayer does not change God's mind. Prayer, in essence, is simply the articulation of that which agrees with what God long ago decided to do. 

What is this based on? Probably this verse: 

1Sa. 15:29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.”

Yet in verse 35 we read, 

And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel.

He is not a man, i.e., He changes His mind in a way that is not like a man.

The biblical reality is that prayer implicitly is predicated on the fact that it obtains results. And there are times in the Bible where God actually relents from His course of action:

Ex. 32:14 Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

Ps. 106:45 for their sake he remembered his covenant and out of his great love he relented. 

Jer. 18:7-8 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will

relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.

Sam Storms would have it that God had already pre-planned His change of action at the beginning of time, so His relenting was already what He was going to do. There is no Bible verse that supports this nonsensical idea, but that is typical of the theological gymnastics Calvinism requires its apologists to do.

The reality is that we are commanded to pray with faith with an expectation that praying changes things:

Ja. 5:15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.

He. 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

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

The Problems with Personal Words - From God How People Become False Prophets to Themselves - by Bob DeWaay

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author operates according to some preconceptions. He lays out an elaborate, confusing train of "logic" that is based on these preconceptions. He leaps to assumptions and makes several undocumented claims, eventually winding up all twisted in a knot. 

We had hoped for an actual biblical case for the author's beliefs, but he never gets there. We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Judgment Seat of Christ: A Life-Altering Allegory - By Elizabeth Prata

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

Ms. Prata assembles a fanciful story about encountering Jesus at the judgment seat. It is in no way biblical. That she would do so is a bit surprising considering how as a cessationist she opposes extra-biblical information.

Further, Ms. Prata sort of quotes Scripture but does not reference it. She appropriates these Scriptures to insert into her story, but the story is false.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Knowing the will of God isn’t a deep dark secret - by Marsha West

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

This is a confused and circuitous explanation, not grounded in Scripture, and nothing more than mere speculation. The author cannot cite a Scripture for her perspective, but instead infers and guesses, mostly relying on other Bible teachers to simply assert the same points she's making.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

1967 Pontiac Lemans #2 - budget build - Episode twelve, surprises, final body prep and reassembly ***updated 6/20/25

 October 5th, 2024:

October 6th, 2024:

Episode one, introduction, here.

Episode two, disassembly and assessment, here.

Episode three, rough body work, here.

Episode four, quarters, here.

Episode five, toe panel, rockers, here.

Episode six, fenders, inner fenders, here.

Episode seven, the doors, found here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As of 6/11/25 I have finished the car to the stated goal, the major bodywork is done. On 6/2/25 I put the car up for sale. It is now available for you to purchase at $7500.00.

Jeremy Clarkson got scammed? - MurrayCampbell

Found here. A very good article.

‐‐--------------------

Jeremy Clarkson is a funny man. At times he’s crude and sometimes refreshingly honest in a nonconformist way. His latest opinion piece for The Times is pitching against French restaurants ripping off tourists, ‘These scams aren’t enough if you ask me. Gullible tourists are being sold cheap wine but why stop there‘. The piece is the work of an imaginative mind and with humorous analogies and a serious point as well. As he pokes the bear on scamming and the human ability to be conned, he throws out images like this one,

‘I could substitute the steak in the pie with chlorinated bear meat from Lithuania and no one would know.’

That’s funny. And depending on where you find yourself on the epistemic spectrum, you’ll either roll with Clarkson’s final jab or take offence. Or perhaps, like myself, you find yourself in a third space, namely, that was a rather naive take, Jeremy Clarkson.

He suggests (no doubt with a drop tongue in cheek),

‘Go big. That’s my message if you are considering becoming a celebrated conman. Take a lesson from the biggest fraudster of them all: Jesus. I can walk on water. My mum was a virgin and my dad’s God. And I’m going to start an industry selling this guff that will last for 2,000 years. Top man.’

I see angels everywhere - the gift of sight - 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.

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

Crushed for Our Iniquities - by Kevin DeYoung

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have had opportunity to examine several of Mr. DeYoung's teachings, and we have been disappointed every time. True to his Calvinist/reformist roots, Mr. DeYoung relishes in the supposed punishment of Jesus at the hands of the Father.

This did not happen. There is no verse that even hints that the Father punished Jesus. This is important. We repeat. The Bible does not teach this.

However, there is one passage that has been used to suggest that Jesus was punished by the Father, Isaiah 53. That is the subject of Mr. DeYoung's article.

First, here's the whole passage:

What Is Covenant Theology? - by Stephen Myers

Found here.

In 968 words the author never defines what "covenant theology" is. He doesn't even tell us what a covenant is. Yes, he does say that it is "the effort to understand God and His relationship with His people through the lens of His covenant dealings with them." But one isn't permitted to use the word being defined in the definition. That's circular reasoning.

Further, the author manages to quote zero verses relevant to his thesis. Zero. He provides numerous verse references, but no actual Bible quotes that illustrate his perspective. How anyone can explain the Bible without quoting it is a mystery.

And, he doesn't contrast covenant theology with other perspectives. He tells us a benefit, "covenant theology helps us understand how an infinite, transcendent God can make a finite, sinful people His own," but is this benefit unique to covenant theology? Does covenant theology explain these things better? We don't know because he never tells us.

Lastly, we require the author to show relevance. This is an entire branch of theology with many intricacies. So why should we know it? How does it improve our obedience, service, or worship? What part of it leads to maturity of faith, generosity, or prayer?

Well, it doesn't. It's simply an empty intellectual exercise. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Medicaid makes good health possible - Kaiser Permanente

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

It's no surprise that an "about us" page is completely self-serving. But it's more than telling people who they are. We suspect that Kaiser Permanente has a substantial financial stake in providing Medicaid coverage, and they're worried that Trump is going to fix the program, which for them represents the loss of a substantial revenue stream.

Self serving is an apt description, because they also trumpet their DEI program, going so far as to count up the number of diverse employees by category.

Astounding.

Kaiser Permanente isn't about providing care or helping people. They are about revenue, nothing more.

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

He came to pay a debt he didn't owe. Because we owed a debt we couldn't pay.

 Found on Faceborg:

Transcript:

He came to pay a debt he didn't owe. Because we owed a debt we couldn't pay.

We have seen these kinds of statements many times, and it's simple enough to refute them. But this time we would simply say, "show me." Where in the Bible do we find that Jesus paid a debt? Where in the Bible do we find that we owe a debt? Who did Jesus pay? 

Chapter and verse, please.

Can Women Exercise Authority in the Church? - by John MacArthur

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

Dr. MacArthur repeats many of the well-worn Reformist/Calvinist points regarding 1 Timothy 2:11–12, a verse we have discussed elsewhere. But he also makes some truly astounding claims about both this passage and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40. 

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

Letter to the editor: Montana delegation can still avoid being complicit to treason - by Bob Allen

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

This letter writer is all in a titter about Trump. We are convinced that rationality has departed from the Left, if it ever had it. Supposedly Trump has defied court rulings, when in fact he has obeyed every one, no matter how inane or unreasonable. 

But more to the point, what does the Constitution, so valued and honored by the letter writer, actually say about treason?

Article III, Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Hmmm. No mention of defying judges.)

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

Combating Charismatic Theology - by Phil Johnson

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

Over 12,700 words. Wow. And over 2300 words just to get to the first Scripture. Ultimately we will discover that Mr. Johnson never does make an affirmative Scriptural case for his beliefs. He has a lot to say about errant charismatics, but very little to document his own beliefs. Plus, at the end he makes the astonishing statement that it is really up to charismatics to prove their case. Wow.

This long presentation is perhaps the worst defense of cessationism we have ever read. The fact that anyone would consider Mr. Johnson a competent Bible teacher is astounding to us.

We have written extensively about cessationism, including our multi-part examination and biblical refutation of cessationism. We have, we believe, made a compelling case for our beliefs.

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

Pelagius - Are we really that bad? - by Michael Jensen

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---‐---------

We agree with one commenter on this article: Much like the gospel of Mark, this feels a little incomplete!

It certainly does. We are at loss to understand why the author calls Pelagianism a heresy based on what he has written. Not knowing a lot about this, we had hoped to learn more. But we ended up confused.

Lastly, no relevant Bible verses quoted.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Jesus Doesn’t Need An Invitation Into Your Heart - by Jacob Crouch

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It seems Mr. Crouch is against the use of certain words regarding how to get saved. And he is emphatic. Adamant, even.

This kind of moral certainty causes us to wonder what the motive is. What is Mr. Crouch reacting against? It is clear he is a Calvinist, which includes the belief that God chose those who would be saved (the Elect). But he's terribly confused, because he still wants people "to plead with Him to save you," assuring us that "He will open your eyes." So we cannot "invite" Him, but we can "plead with Him." Different actions on our part lead to the same result, so we are mystified what all the hubbub is about.

Therefore, if God has already made the choice, then inviting Jesus in, accepting Him as Lord and Savior, pleasing with him to have mercy, or whatever other behavior might be prescribed for us, would be in conflict with God's sovereignty and grace. 

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

About Jehovah's Witnesses - the Godhood of Jesus

We appreciate the zeal of the Witnesses, but not their scholarship. We tend not to argue doctrine for that reason. Instead we tell of the love of the Father, the forgiveness and mercy He has available. 

The Witnesses really don't understand anything except the rules and the conformity to their church. That's why this part of the Gospel really cuts through the fog of deception, much more than winning a theological argument.

Nevertheless, we ran across a verse that brought the witnesses to mind, and it is a theological issue. Here's the verse:

Acts 20:28 NIV ...has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Now, the reason this caught our eye is likely pretty obvious to anyone acquainted with the Witness's beliefs. They believe Jesus was created, that He's not co-eternal part of the trinity. So what would the Witnesses do with this verse in their own translation of the Bible, the New World Translation? Well, here it is:

Acts 20:28 NWT  ...has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.

The change is fairly subtle. A couple of minor variations in word choice and word order - all pretty conventional, except the addition of a single particular word, "son." This is how the NWT avoids the conflict with their doctrine. But there's a problem. The interlinear Greek reads:

etheto [has set] episkopous [overseers] poimainein [to shepherd] tēn [the] ekklēsian [church] tou [of] Theou [God] hēn [which] periepoiēsato [He purchased] dia [with] tou [the] haimatos [blood] tou [the] idiou [own]

Notice that "son" (Greek, huios) does not appear in the Greek text. The word is added by the Witnesses.

God's blood is in view here. God the son. There's only one God who shed His blood for our sake. Jesus.

Reader Q&A: Can Wolves in Christianity Truly Be Saved? (Part 2) - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata asks a question she doesn't actually answer. She also confuses false teachers with generally evil men in the congregation. 

This is a confused, unfocused presentation. Especially since she completely ignores certain relevant verses, like:

He. 6:4-6 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Lastly, we should note that sometimes the issue is not with false teachers per se, but rather teachers Ms. Prata disagrees with. And when there is a fallen teacher with whom she agrees, like David Platt, she dances around the problem by simply claiming he appeared to teach sound doctrine.

She badly wants the answer to be "no," that false teachers cannot be saved, that they are incapable of repenting, but ultimately she has no verse that tells us this. And that may be the bottom line here. People like Ms. Prata presume that excellent doctrine is the same thing as godliness. So a someone who teaches correct doctrine cannot be a secret sinner and cannot fall.

This is obviously false.

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

Rich's proverbs, book thirteen ***updated 5/2/25 with chapter four

Book twelve here.

Book eleven here.

Book ten here.

Book nine here.

Book eight here.

Book seven here.

Book six here.

Book five here.

Book four here.

Book three here.

Book two here.

Book one here.

This is a continuation of my practice to take notes on what I prayed.

Regenerated, converted: why not say "born again?"

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 the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture? - by gotquestions

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

This is a good answer. Until the last paragraph.

After making statements like the Bible is all that is necessary and all we need, gotquestions ends the article with a criticism of certain practices, without explaining or connecting it to the previous discussion. They write:

The sufficiency of Scripture is under attack today, and, sadly, that attack comes far too often in our own churches. Certain management techniques, worldly methods of drawing crowds, entertainment, extra-biblical revelations, mysticism, and some forms of psychological counseling all declare that the Bible is not adequate for the Christian life.

It seems there are certain practices and sources of information that are problematic regarding the sufficiency of the Bible. Thus gotquestions wants to create categories. They don't like certain management techniques, for example, which implies that some other management techniques are acceptable. Apparently, good kinds of management techniques do not impugn the sufficiency of the Bible, but bad kinds make the Bible insufficient. How this happens is a mystery.

Gotquestions also mentions "extra-biblical revelations," a cryptic descriptor. By this we assume they are referring to a statement they made earlier in the article, where they write: 

...no other writings, no matter how godly the pastor, theologian, or denominational church they may come from, are to be seen as equal to or completing the Word of God. 

This would mean that extra biblical revelations like sermons, commentaries, Bible dictionaries, even this very article, are not equal to the Bible. We would certainly agree. Such sources of information are not on par with Scripture, therefore they do not impact the sufficiency of the Bible. 

However, gotquestions believes there are "extra-biblical revelations" that do impact sufficiency. They don't tell us, but this is actually a reference to contemporary prophecy. Cessationists, and presumably gotquestions, believe that all prophecy is on par with Scripture, aka authoritative revelation, so they believe that it must be added to the Bible. But they reason that the canon is closed, so contemporary prophecy cannot be added to the Bible. Therefore, the only remaining possibility is that all contemporary prophecy must be false prophecy.

For some unexplained reason, their previously stated standard that all other information is inferior to the Bible, suddenly doesn't apply. How this happens is again, a mystery, since the Bible doesn't give us this criteria.

We first should note that all prophecy, ancient as well as contemporary, definitionally is "extra-biblical revelation," and all Scripture was previously "extra-biblical revelation." Therefore, prophecy isn't Scripture until it is inscripturated. And there are many prophecies that haven't been inscripturated. Even a casual Bible student would discover that all sorts of prophecies, miracles, and other supernatural events didn't make the cut, as it were. Which negates the idea that prophecy is required to be viewed as "authoritative revelation."

Let's list some examples. Some of the great wisdom of King Solomon was not deemed worthy of inclusion in the Holy Writ. Readers are directed to the "annals of Solomon," something we do not have today:

1Kg. 11:41 As for the other events of Solomon’s reign — all he did and the wisdom he displayed — are they not written in the book of the annals of Solomon?

King Saul prophesied to the extent that the people wondered if he was included among the prophets. However, we don't have any of those prophecies:

1Sa. 10:10-11 When they arrived at Gibeah, a procession of prophets met him; the Spirit of God came upon him in power, and he joined in their prophesying. 11 When all those who had formerly known him saw him prophesying with the prophets, they asked each other, “What is this that has happened to the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?

Agabus was a N.T. prophet worthy of special note in the Church. It is interesting that only one of his prophecies was included in the narrative (and a summary of another), while any other prophecies he might have spoken were omitted:

Ac. 21:10 After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea.

There are a number of prophets identified by name in the NT, yet we don't have any prophecies from them. Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen:

Ac. 13:1-2 In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.

We also do not have any prophecies from Judas or Silas, even though they said much:

Ac. 15:32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers.

And these twelve men prophesied, but we don't have a record of their prophecies:

Ac. 19:6-7 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

Philip's daughters prophesied, but that all we know:

Ac. 21:8-9 Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. 9 He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.

Even Jesus, as critically important are His words and deeds, was subject to editing by the Holy Spirit:

Jn. 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Why would contemporary prophecy have the requirement imposed on it that it must be included as Scripture, when so much of the prophetic mentioned in the Bible was not? 

Conclusion: Contemporary prophecy does not impact the sufficiency of Scripture.

If gotquestions has other objections to contemporary prophecy, we would be happy to consider them.

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

How to Raise Revenue without Harming Middle Class - By Joel D. Joseph

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Implicit in this article is the assumption that revenue NEEDS to be raised. We do not assent to this assumption. Government doesn't lack money, it lacks discipline. We have DOGE, and its mission is completely contrary to the author's premise. We agree with DOGE: Cut wasteful spending, stop fraud and abuse. 

In addition, in typical liberal fashion the author's solution for raising revenue is to raise taxes. This has never worked, but it's the sole focus of the Left.

Lastly, the author presumes without evidence that increasing taxes in one area will not affect another area. For example, he recommends increasing corporate taxes. But corporate taxes are just another cost of doing business, and the cost of business is included in the products the corporation sells. The consumer (i.e. middle class) pays all taxes via the increased cost of the product, so raising corporate taxes is a defacto increase in cost of living for the middle class.

We think the author actually knows this, but because he's parroting the Leftist narrative in pursuit of The Agenda, he's quite happy to deceive his readers.

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

A Brief Look at John Calvin on Imputation - by Thomas R. Schreiner

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is supposed to be a Bible teaching to explain a doctrine. However, the author doesn't quote a single word of Scripture. He is able to quote Calvin, but Calvin also does not quote Scripture. He does cite two Scripture references, but neither of them have anything to do with imputation.

As such, this is nothing more than a long series of undocumented opinions. And this from a professor at a seminary? We must deem it Bad Bible Teaching.

‐---------

Repent or Perish - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a perfect example of the confused thinking required to embrace Calvinism. We have discussed many aspects of Calvinism in our blog, and find the doctrines of Calvin to be false and even pernicious, because they misrepresent God, misrepresent the gospel, and ultimately, make no difference in our obligations or privileges as Christians.

Calvinism forces people into false binary choices (predestined vs. freewill, eternal security vs. losing one's salvation, etc.). However, God is not a binary being. He is sovereign, but that does not mean he must control everything. He is grace-filled, but that does not mean He must dole out grace according to a formula. He saves us by His grace, but that does not mean grace is limited to the saved.

What if God is indeed totally sovereign, and yet in His sovereignty He simply chooses not to always intervene in His creation? Doesn't God get to decide His own sovereignty?

This is the problem endemic to Calvinists specifically, and theology generally: The need to figure out everything and systematize it according to logic and reason. But God is far beyond our logic. We should resist the idea that rational thought is the methodology we should use to figure Him out: 

1Co. 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

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

Letter to the editor: What would Jesus say of those who shun diversity, inclusion? - by Alfred Hanna

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

This is a confused and ignorant letter, full of leftist prescriptions masquerading as Christianity. The leftist starts with his politics, then looks to justify his politics with half-remembered Bible stories. That's what the Left does, dress up their pernicious beliefs with Jesus, using innocuous language and half-truths.

The idea that Jesus would condone any government policy is preposterous on its face. That we would approve of DEI in particular as a government policy is even more preposterous: 

Jn. 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Jn. 6:15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

The letter writer wants his Jesus in his own image. That is a dangerous position to be in.

We will mostly answer the letter writer with what Jesus Himself said. That's the best way to determine what Jesus would do.

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

Don’t count on the courts to save democracy - By Ryan D. Doerfler and Samuel Moyn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

What an odd title. The courts have nothing to do with democracy. Their job is to rule on matters of law. Apparently the problem is the Left thinks that the courts can fix democracy, so the authors want to convince their fellow leftists of the folly of this thinking.

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

The Cessation of the Sign Gifts - by Prof Thomas R. Edgar

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a long slog, almost 6300 words. Yet we were only able to find four words actually quoted from the Bible. Just these four words: In the last days... That's it.

It takes the author a little over 1000 words to mention his first Bible verse. And, another 2500 words pass by before the author starts to address the actual biblical case, where he opens with this:

No Bible verse specifically states that tongues, signs, and wonders will continue throughout the Church Age. Nor is there a verse that specifically states they will cease at the end of the apostolic age. 

This is astounding. How can a supposed Bible teacher, a professor no less, write thousands of words while admitting there is no actual proof verse for either point of view? How can he provide a Bible teaching without quoting the Bible? How is it possible to explain something this important while admitting his beliefs are really not stated in the Bible?

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Big Chill - by Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich lists four pillars of a civil society: universities, science, the media, and the law. The Society for Peace would say scholarship, service, leadership, and character. She owns it lists family, social enterprises, faith institutions, and entrepreneurs. Human rights careers, with a decidedly leftist tilt, lists access, equity, participation, and human rights.

In other words, there isn't a recognized list of the four pillars of society. Dr. Reich simply makes it up. He has a penchant for this sort of thing, where cherry picking facts, misrepresenting events, and misquoting people, is almost a habit for him.

In our view, the four pillars of a civil society are Christianity, family, individual liberty, and limited government. Our list is as good as anyone's.

So Dr. Reich wants to warn us all about the supposed illegal actions of the Trump administration and the imperiled four pillars of a civil society. He worries that Trump is a tyrant who is going to silence dissent. He is concerned for the safety of people who might speak up in opposition. He thinks government employees are going to keep their heads down in fear of losing their jobs.

All this rings hollow, since we as conservatives have had to endure increasing leftist tyranny for the past two decades and Dr. Reich happily joined in. We have actually lived in what Dr. Reich is thinking as only a possibility. Now that the political tides are turning against he and his ilk, he's concerned that this monster of a government the Left has created is going to be used against them.

Well, good riddance.

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

Does God Withdraw His Presence from Me? - by John Piper

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------

Pastor Piper dedicates most of his reply to background information. In these first two sections he brings Scripture quotes and references about God's omnipresence and steadfastness.

But the third section (the manifest presence of God) is what we might call the "money" section, because it is the actual substance of Piper's answer. He writes, "so, here’s my answer to her question." 

But doesn't answer the question. All he can manage is to appeal to the Puritans and then make some assertions:

I don’t mean that we are forsaken by our covenant God. I mean that the manifestations of his presence are limited. He doesn’t withdraw his covenant commitment to us or his sustaining grace from us. What he withdraws is the sweetness of his fellowship from time to time, or the conscious sense of his power. 

This may indeed be true but it's nothing more than opinion at this point, because he has abandoned biblical documentation. Then, astonishingly, he punts on the answer: 

I think maybe there would be another time for us to talk about that. 

Wait. Why in the world would he take up the question only to decide not to talk about it? This article is over 1300 words including the introductory remarks!

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Bad Worship Songs: It's Always Been You - by Phil Wickham

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song, It's Always Been You.

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

Prophecy and Tongues: A Compilation of the Best Cessationist Arguments - by Lee Irons

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

These are the best, according to the title. We would expect them to be devastating, the last word on the cessationism debate.

But they aren't good arguments at all. They aren't even biblical arguments, they're mostly assumptions and deductions from preconceived ideas about what someone has said about certain Scriptures.

They aren't really even arguments. They are assertions. Claims. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Why ‘God Told Me’ Isn’t Biblical - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Over 1200 words, yet Ms. Prata cannot bring herself to explain why (from the Bible) contemporary prophecy is unbiblical. 

So that the reader would understand, Mr. Prata, like a lot of cessationists, falsely believes that everything God says must be included in the Bible. The Bible doesn't tell us this, but that's what she believes. 

Towards the end of her article she writes,

The canon is closed. 

We certainly agree. But what does the closed canon have to do with contemporary prophecy? She continues:

God’s new revelation ended with Revelation 22. 

"New revelation" for her means anything God says after the closed canon, all of which must be put in the Bible. However, there is no biblical standard that requires this. Next:

I’m not saying God CAN’T speak now, of course He can. It’s just that He closed the Bible with a warning not to add to the book nor take away from it. 

Again we find her premise that God speaking is synonymous with adding words to the Bible. And finally:

He said that at the present time, He would not be speaking. 

Thus her unbiblical conclusion based on a false premise. 

The Bible tells us that God is still speaking today: 

He. 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

We have written detailed explanations about contemporary prophecy and the closed canon, here and here.

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

Helping my son tile his kitchen: from flooring to structure to electrical ***updated 5/21/25

My son bought a cozy little house several years ago. 936 square feet, two bedroom, one bath, with a full unfinished basement. Although this 1959 house needs remodeling, my son is a mechanic at heart and prefers to work on car projects. 

But a few months ago he finally got the motivation to start on his house again. A dozen boxes of ceramic tile, obtained very cheaply, have been sitting in his living room for a long time, so he decided to tear out the ugly and worn kitchen floor and install the tile.

Now, we did do some work on the house prior to this latest binge, which involved moving the basement stairs out of the dining room and into the living room. We also demolished the scabbed together basement and started framing out a basement bathroom. But this was 3-4 years ago.

Here's a floor plan to help you understand the things we were undertaking: