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.

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