Incarnation Anyway - by Mark Jonesapril

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

The author is going to grapple with a needless rhetorical adversary. The fact of the matter is that in the manifold wisdom and mercy of God, the Father sent His Son as a sacrifice to redeem mankind from death. Would the Father have sent Jesus if Adam hadn't sinned is a question with an unedifying answer, because Adam did sin and Jesus did come and die.

It is true that we benefit by gaining unencumbered fellowship with the Father. But is that any different than Adam’s pre-sin state? If Adam hadn't sinned, does that mean every single subsequent human would not have sinned? We can't know these things, and as such this all is a vain intellectual argument.

Lastly, the author manages to quote only five words of Scripture in 1200+ words. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Greatest Theological Statement Ever Written? Nine Observations About John 1:14 - by Mitch Chase

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

On the whole, this is a good presentation. The author takes a familiar verse and reawakens our wonder at the glory of God expressed through His Son.

There are a couple of problems, however, which we will explore below.

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

The Great Tribulation: Back to the Future, Part 5 - by Clint Archer

Found here. Our comments in bold.

We previously commented on part four here. Part six and seven are here.

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

The author quotes a bunch of Scripture, which gladdens our heart. It is so rare an event among so-called Bible teachers. 

But the problem is, the author fills in the gaps with his interpretations and speculations. He gives us no reason at all to believe or accept those interpretations and speculations. And in fact, they make no sense. It's like he made them up.

It's like a puzzle where the person is shoving pieces into place whether or not they fit. The author has a template, and all the evidence shall be made to fit, whether it does or not.

The worst thing is, in the end none of it is profitable. None of it applies to living a holy life. None of it contributes to worship, service, or evangelism. It's all empty, without meaning or spiritual profit.

Nothing here makes a lick of difference to the day-to-day life of a Christian.

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

When people say Jesus Christ is coming again do not believe them, for Jesus Christ never left you - FB meme

 Found on FB:

Transcript:

When people say Jesus Christ is coming again do not believe them, for Jesus Christ never left you. Did he not say, "Lo, I AM with you always, even to the end of the age?" Then how can you look for him to return? Scripture states that Christ was taken up into the kingdom of heaven (which is within) and that he will come in the same manner as he was taken up. If Christ (God's creative power) is in you, he cannot come from without. Although he seems to be invisible, Christ has never left you, as you cannot detach yourself from imagination.

This is a "new-agey" interpretation of the return of Jesus. We say this because there are people who kinda don't like what the Bible says, so they want to reinterpret it to suit their own ideas, while simultaneously retaining a superficial connection to the faith. 

These are truth claims. Truth claims require source information. If one claims the truth, one must document it objectively. It is one thing to claim a personal truth, but it is entirely another to expect someone else to embrace it. Once a personal truth contains an imperative (you must believe this truth also), then it no longer is personal truth. It becomes objective truth requiring an objective source.

So they set out to tell what the Bible actually means. You've had it wrong all this time, and they have some truth to tell you.  

The Corridor of Time - by Keith Mathison (the doctrine of election)

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

How is it possible to discuss theology and important doctrines without quoting or even referencing Scripture? Astonishingly, the author manages to do it.

He thinks he's caught Arminians in a conundrum regarding the foreknowledge of God, all based on arcane speculations about how God might know something about the future. It seems the author believes God cannot conceive of a future moment in time without decreeing its existence. That is, every moment in history somehow must be real for God, and the circumstances and events of that moment must exist.

This suggests that God is at the mercy of what would constitute reality, i.e., God cannot know something without it actually becoming real. The author writes, For the events of history to exist in the mind of God prior to their existence in external reality would require something like the divine decree... This is a bare assertion, pulled out of thin air. There is no biblical principle which would suggest that God cannot know things without decreeing their existences. 

It is a nonsense statement, created by the thinking of a man who feels he must systematize the nature of the mind of God.  God spoke prophetically to Isaiah in answer to such vain ramblings:

Is. 40:13 Who has understood the mind of the LORD, or instructed him as his counselor?

Is. 55:8-9 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. 9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

God is completely other. There is no reason to believe He is subject to the constraints of time in any fashion. He is not subject to logic or beholden to anything He has created, including time. His nature is inscrutable.

We think such speculations are unedifying. They may be interesting on some level, or an intellectual curiosity, but there is nothing of eternal worth at stake here. Resolving the issue of God's foreknowledge does not speak to any obligation of the Christian to live a holy life, be a worshiper, grow in faith and maturity, or minister to the poor and dispossessed. The topic is completely irrelevant.

Lastly, the author closes with an assertion, that his way is correct and any other option is blasphemy. This is an astounding statement, made without documentation or context. Somehow he knows exactly how God thinks, and any other opinion about it consigns a person to perdition. 

Incredible.

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