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.

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