David Smith's comment about modern day apostles

This comment is so tangled we decided it needed its own post. Our comments in bold.

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

David Smith writes:

Greetings.

The obvious is never irrelevant. (Obviousness is not an indicator of relevance. It is obvious that the sun rises in the east, but that obvious fact has no bearing on what I'm going to eat for lunch today.)

Jesus Himself appealed to the readily apparent. (Sometimes, sometimes not. He also appealed to mysteries and profundities never before seen. 

Mt. 13:35 So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.” [Psalm 78:2]

Mt. 10:26-27 ...There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.

Mt. 11:25 “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."

Lk. 18:34 The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.

Tongues Have Ceased - Let God be True

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Once again we look for the biblical case for the ceasing of the "supernatural" gifts. The failures or excesses of certain people will not be considered. Contemporary expressions aren't evidence. The things that happened or didn't happen in church history isn't relevant. We want the BIBLICAL case, demonstrated from the Scriptures.

This rather long and repetitive article makes repeated assertions as if they were self-evident and thus didn't need to be documented. Well, they do.

The author will provide numerous biblical references, but quotes only a single Scripture right at the beginning. This is a troublesome characteristic of cessationists, they seem to hate quoting the actual Scripture. And, he will never actually explain how his interpretations are the correct ones, he simply makes assertions.

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

Science. Because the answer never turned out to be magic. Ever.

Found this on facebook. As is typical for leftist science fetishists, this gets it wrong on a variety of levels.

1) It's a Category Error.
2) It's a false binary choice.
3) Neither science or magic are ever the answer. Science is the method by which the questions are explored, and magic is an appeal to mysteries. No one answers the question, "Why did this happen?" by saying "science."
4) Science is definitionally limited to testable phenomena. It has nothing to say about anything outside its realm of inquiry.

*updated* MODERN DAY-APOSTLES? BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Update: Mr. Finnell adds a new post about apostleship where he asks, 

"If there were apostles after the ones mentioned in the new testament and if there are apostles living today, why are their writings not included in the Bible? The apostles that Jesus selected wrote Scriptures."

We could do worse than democratic socialism - By Richard Mecklenburg

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------------

Mr. Mecklenburg (letter below) is responding to this letter:

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions - TED 2010

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------

Sam Harris is one of the so-called New Atheists, a group of people who are attempting to breathe new life into atheism so as to bring this unpopular perspective into the mainstream. Mr. Harris is probably one of the less rigorous thinkers in the New Atheist camp, given to leaps in logic, presuming his premises, and weak reasoning.

It's such an unpopular thing to be an atheist, generally because being an atheist these days means to belittle, attack, and mock theists. Astonishingly, they think these techniques will persuade and convert theists. 

New atheists are missionaries, and their goal is to create a godless society, wiping out religion so as to create a rationalist utopia. 

In the below presentation, Mr. Harris attempts to demonstrate that morality can come from science. Or something.
------------------

Why Hillsong Music is Dangerous For Your Church - by Jeff Maples

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

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

It is difficult to pinpoint the author's complaint. He provides no documentation of his claims. He just knows for sure that Hillsongs is a cult.

It seems that the author's requirement for church music is that it must be a theological treatise. Or that it can't be emotional. Or it can't have electric guitars. Or it can't be from Hillsongs Church. Or something. He never really says.

Hillsong's songbook is extensive, with hundreds if not thousands of songs going back 20 years, attaining some fame when Darlene Zschech burst onto the scene with "Shout to the Lord." Yet the author wants to believe it's all evil because he can locate some that he has an issue with. Or actually, because the church has suspected heretical practices.

Dozens of songwriters writing on many topics. And they're all cultists writing emotional, sappy, superficial drivel? Does that even seem possible to you?

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

GOD'S COMPLETE REVELATION! BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have yet to find a coherent, persuasive explanation of the supposed cessation of the gifts. Mr. Finnell takes another shot at it, but fails miserably. You can review what we've already written about the subject here. 
--------------------------------

Diabolical Narcissism: GASLIGHTING - By Ann Barnhart

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. A very good article.

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

To review, a Diabolical Narcissist is a person who has freely chosen, exactly as the fallen angels (satan and the demons) did, to purge themselves of all charity and are thus voluntarily incapable of love or empathy, and whose entire emotional palate is thus limited to anger, hatred, jealousy and fear. Diabolical Narcissists are often of above-average or even genius-level intelligence, are usually accomplished in their fields, and can be desperately charming. They are also inveterate and facile liars, and almost all aberrosexuals (homosexuals, asexuals, transvestites, pedophiles, etc.) are Diabolical Narcissists. Diabolical Narcissists are vampiric and hold special malice for people who are loving, happy, grateful and empathetic – which is why children are often their targets. Diabolical Narcissists identify targets whom they then “hunt”, with the intent of crushing the target such that the target is likewise purged of all charity. And the wheels of the bus go ’round and ’round. Their sole motivation, like the demons, is pure, unadulterated spite.

Sen. Daines shirking his constitutional duty - By Dan Lourie

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------

BAPTIZED WITH FIRE? by Steve Finnell

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

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

Finally Mr. Finnell takes on a new topic. Unfortunately, he once again fails basic Bible knowledge. He isolates a passage of Scripture from its context,  infers a conclusion, and then deems baptism with fire to be a bad thing.

I cover this in some depth with another post, so some of this will be a duplication.

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

FB conversation about abortion

A friend posted this on FB, and a "conversation" ensued:

Sarah G: Anyone who wants to outlaw abortion is not taking the mother's life and welfare into account. Plain and simple, if you want to control this aspect of another person's life you are denying them human rights.

Me: There is no human right to murder a human.

Sarah G: There is a human right to deny pregnancy, parenthood, and childbirth. You cannot control other people's futures in that way. Take away abortion, you take away rights from women, not to be controlled by a patriarchy notorious for restraining them through parenthood. Some people want children. Other people do not. It's not your choice, or your problem. You don't have a uterus. Nobody is going to knock you up and leave you to care for the result by yourself. And if they did, you'd have a choice to make. Automatically choosing one option is up to you, however you do not, nor does anybody else has the right to control other people's lives. Like it or not, that's the reality of it. If you think abortion is murder, then I'd like to alert you that your privilege is showing.

Me: If you could slow down on the bumper sticker slogans, it would help our dialog.

Sarah G: Speak for yourself.

Me: I will do so indeed. Are you interested in dialog, or talking points?

Me: Talking points it is. Here's a handy website for you to select a slogan: http://www.protectchoice.org/article.php?id=193

Nyk Z: The thing is, Rich, no matter what your opinion of abortion is, you are not a woman and it's arrogant to think that you have the right to even have an opinion on what she can or can't do with a fetus that is inside of HER body. Sure, it has POTENTIAL to become a human being, just like a seed in the ground has potential to become a tree, but it's not viable on its own. I know that you are dead set in your views and will never consider this from a woman's point of view because of your judgment, but the fact is....you will never have to make that choice. If men could get pregnant, abortion clinics would be as ubiquitous as Starbucks.

Nyk Z: Abortion is an act of love. To bring another human into this world is a very serious commitment and women should absolutely have the choice whether they want to endure that or not. If, for whatever reason, a woman is not ready to bear a child, it's nobody's business but her own.

Nyk Z: Rich, why don't you intelligently respond to what Sarah said, rather than accusing her of using "bumper sticker slogans"? She is making a very valid point.

Me: Ms. Z, you are not in a position to tell me what I can or can't have an opinion about. You are not a man, you can't possibly know what it's like. And, you don't know anything about my judgments or arrogance or whether or not I'm dead set in my views. They are empty accusations anyway, since you and everyone else in the world are also dead set in their views.

I would certainly respond to Ms. G, but I made a valid point before she did, to which she needs to respond.

You seem to be making a property rights defense regarding women and their bodies. Unfortunately, there is no absolute right to dictate one's property. Just like a landlord who rents to a tenant, a pregnant woman has ceded certain property rights. A person cannot sell their organs. A motorcyclist must wear a helmet. Marijuana use is still strictly regulated in many places. It is clear the the use of one's body is regulated and limited.

Maybe you have another "intelligent" point?

Sarah G: My body is not an object. My body is not for rent. My body, my life, my choice to become a parent or to refuse to become a parent, not someone who disagrees upon that fact based on moral standings. You insulted me, showing that you are not only incapable of having an intelligent discussion on this topic, but also a refusal to hear any arguments for the opposing side. You're frankly, too arrogant and stupid to debate with, so why waste my time? You're just going to spout a bunch of crap, so why don't you go find yourself a toilet to throw your demeaning and outdated ideas into. This is not an issue about morality. This is an issue surrounding control of women's lives through parenthood. If you gave a damn about the welfare and history of women on the earth, you might understand why an abortion can be a better option, than dealing with the repercussions of pregnancy and parenthood. Pregnancy is not a punishment for sex. This isn't the 1800's anymore and we're not going back to the way it was. I'm unsubscribing to this post because you make me sick, strutting around like you know better than I do about the law and morality and just being a general jackass. Kindly, GFY.

Me: Didn't take long for the name calling. Typical leftist.

How America Was Lost - Paul Krugman

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------

Once upon a time, the death of a Supreme Court justice wouldn’t have brought America to the edge of constitutional crisis. But that was a different country, with a very different Republican Party. (Mr. Krugman attributes the "crisis" to Republicans. But it is the Left who invests so much in the judiciary. They rely on the courts to implement their agenda when the results of democracy are different than what they wanted.)

In today’s America, with today’s G.O.P., the passing of Antonin Scalia has opened the doors to chaos.

In principle, losing a justice should cause at most a mild disturbance in the national scene. (Except if the nominee is, say, Bork. Does anyone remember the explosion of vitriol when Reagan nominated him?)

After all, the court is supposed to be above politics. (No, it's not. It is the third branch of our government, there is no way it can be above politics.)

So when a vacancy appears, the president should simply nominate, and the Senate approve, someone highly qualified and respected by all. (Qualified, like Elena Kagan? Harriet Miers? Sotomayor? Douglas Ginsberg? How about these guys?

In reality, of course, things were never that pure. (Ahh, so Mr. Krugman admits it has never been this way, so his just-stated expectation is both unprecedented and unrealistic.)

Justices have always had known political leanings, and the process of nomination and approval has often been contentious. (Now he has completely walked back everything he previously wrote.)

Still, there was nothing like the situation we face now, (What? Obama filibustered Samuel Alito in 2006!)

in which Republicans have more or less unanimously declared that President Obama has no right even to nominate a replacement for Mr. Scalia — and no, the fact that Mr. Obama will leave soon doesn’t make it O.K. (Justice Kennedy was appointed during Ronald Reagan’s last year in office.) (History is apparently a weak subject for Mr. Krugman. Bork was Reagan's first choice, nominating him on July 1st, 1987. Reagan left office on January 20th, 1989. 

Bork was rejected by the Senate on October 23, 1987. Anthony Kennedy was nominated on November 11th, 1987. Again note that Reagan left office on January 20th, 1989.)

Nor were the consequences of a court vacancy as troubling in the past as they are now. As everyone is pointing out, without Mr. Scalia the justices are evenly divided between Republican and Democratic appointees — which probably means a hung court on many issues. (Again Mr. Krugman notes the political nature of the Court. This situation was created by leftists, led by FDR, who pushed the Court into the political arena in contravention of their actual duties as outlined in the Constitution. 

Now the Left has to live with the monster they created. Had the court not been politicized and invested in so much power [including the power to legislate], we wouldn't have this problem.)

And there’s no telling how long that situation may last. If a Democrat wins the White House but the G.O.P. holds the Senate, when if ever do you think Republicans would be willing to confirm anyone the new president nominates?

How did we get into this mess? (Um, yeah. It's you and those who think like you who deserve the blame.)

At one level the answer is the ever-widening partisan divide. Polarization has measurably increased in every aspect of American politics, from congressional voting to public opinion, with an especially dramatic rise in“negative partisanship” — distrust of and disdain for the other side. And the Supreme Court is no different. As recently as the 1970s the court had several “swing” members, whose votes weren’t always predictable from partisan positions, but that center now consists only of Mr. Kennedy, and only some of the time.

But simply pointing to rising partisanship as the source of our crisis, while not exactly wrong, can be deeply misleading. First, decrying partisanship can make it seem as if we’re just talking about bad manners, when we’re really looking at huge differences on substance. Second, it’s really important not to engage in false symmetry: only one of our two major political parties has gone off the deep end. (I.e., Republicans, of course. Democrats are always virtuous and fair-minded.)

On the substantive divide between the parties: I still encounter people on the left (although never on the right) who claim that there’s no big difference between Republicans and Democrats, or at any rate “establishment” Democrats. But that’s nonsense. Even if you’re disappointed in what President Obama accomplished, he substantially raised taxes on the rich and dramatically expanded the social safety net; significantly tightened financial regulation; encouraged and oversaw a surge in renewable energy; moved forward on diplomacy with Iran. (Wandering off topic, Mr. Krugman finds it necessary to defend Obama.)

Any Republican would undo all of that, and move sharply in the opposite direction. If anything, the consensus among the presidential candidates seems to be that George W. Bush didn’t cut taxes on the rich nearly enough, and should have made more use of torture. (Wandering still farther afield, the obligatory shot at G.W.)

When we talk about partisanship, then, we’re not talking about arbitrary teams, we’re talking about a deep divide on values and policy. How can anyone not be “partisan” in the sense of preferring one of these visions?

And it’s up to you to decide which version you prefer. So why do I say that only one party has gone off the deep end?

One answer is, compare last week’s Democratic debate with Saturday’s Republican debate. Need I say more? (Well, yes. It is intellectually dishonest and vapid to isolate a couple of recent events and deem them as emblematic of the issue he's talking about.)

Beyond that, there are huge differences in tactics and attitudes. (Well, that's true. Democrats regularly embrace scorched-earth tactics, character assassination, and name-calling.)

Democrats never tried to extort concessions by threatening to cut off U.S. borrowing and create a financial crisis; (In other words, Mr. Krugman doesn't like it when a political party pursues its objectives, if that party is Republican. 
He probably longs for the old days when there was no alternative media, when Democrats were perennially in charge with little or no opposition, when Republicans were powerless and reduced to hoping to get invited to D.C. cocktail parties.

But now, we have the Rush Limbaughs of the world providing a counter to the incessant leftist tilt of the mainstream media, and Mr. Krugman doesn't like it. Republicans are slowly gaining the courage of their convictions and deciding to do something about them. 

This is probably very concerning to leftists like Mr. Krugman.)

Republicans did. Democrats don’t routinely deny the legitimacy of presidents from the other party; Republicans did it to both Bill Clinton and Mr. Obama. (Whaa? Does anyone remember Bush v. Gore, and how G.W. was incessantly vilified as stealing the election? Hanging chads? The Florida recounts?)

The G.O.P.’s new Supreme Court blockade is, fundamentally, in a direct line of descent from the days when Republicans used to call Mr. Clinton “your president.”

So how does this get resolved? One answer could be a Republican sweep — although you have to ask, did the men on that stage Saturday convey the impression of a party that’s ready to govern? Or maybe you believe — based on no evidence I’m aware of — that a populist rising from the left is ready to happen any day now. But if divided government persists, it’s really hard to see how we avoid growing chaos.

Maybe we should all start wearing baseball caps that say, “Make America governable again.”

The Abuse from Saeed Abedini apparently Continues- by Chad Estes

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------

I am totally flabbergasted. This "Christian" writer seems to feel free to write the most vile, hateful things about people with impunity.

I don't wish to take sides in this marital struggle, but I will comment on Mr. Estes' moral certainty about the situation.
-----------------------

Stop Humiliating Teachers - BY DAVID DENBY

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

Why Don't More Churches Ask Women to Lead? 1 in 5 women feel under-utilized in the church. - by Amy R. Buckley

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------

The author's thinking appears to be unduly colored by feminist ideology. In fact, every article on her website is about oppressed women, abused women, and women who have broke free of the patriarchy. 

I should say going in that I favor women deaconesses, because the Bible talks about them. Thus, this is not written as an anti-woman-leader piece. I am more interested in the failures of the author's thinking processes.
--------------------

The Nicene Creed According to the Scriptures - By Richard Gilbert

The Father

I Believe
Rom. 10:9, Jas 2:19, John 14:1

In one God,
Deut. 6:4, Is. 44:6

The Father
Is. 63:16, 2 Pet 1:17, Matt. 6:9

Almighty,
Gen. 17:1, Ps. 91:1, Rev. 4:8

Maker
Job 4:17, 35:10, Is. 17:7, 54:5

of heaven
Gen 1:1, 8

and earth
Ps. 104:5, Jer. 51:15

and of all things
Gen 1:31

visible and invisible.
Ps. 89:11-12, Amos 4:13, Rev. 3:5, Col. 1:16

The Son

And in one Lord
Eph. 4:5

Jesus Christ,
Acts 10:36, 11:17, Rom. 1:7, 5:1, 1 Cor 1:2, 6:11, 2 Cor. 1:2, 8:9
Gal. 1:3, 6:14, Eph. 1:2, 3:11, Phil. 1:2, 3:20, Col. 1:3, 2:6, 1 Thes. 1:1, 5:9,
2 Thes. 1:1, 2:14, 1 Tim. 6:3, 14, 2 Tim. 1:2, Philemon 1:3, 25, Heb. 13:20,
Jas. 1:1, 2:1, 1 Pet. 1:3, 3:15, 2 Pet. 1:8, 14, Jude 17, 21, Rev. 22:20-21

the only-begotton,
John 1:18

Son of God,
Matt 3:17, John 3:16

Begotten of His Father,
Heb. 1:5

Before all worlds,
John 1:1, Col. 1:17, 1 John 1:1

begotten,
John 1:1, Heb. 1:5

Not Made,
Mic. 5:2, John 1:18, 17:5

Being of one substance with the Father,
John 10:30, 14:9

By whom all things were made;
1 Cor. 8:6, Col 1:16

Who for us men
Matt 20:28, John 10:10

and for our salvation
Matt 1:21, Luke 19:10

came down from heaven
Rom. 10:6, Eph. 4:10

and was incarnate
Col. 2:9

by the Holy Spirit
Matt 1:18

of the Virgin Mary
Luke 1:34-35

and was made man;
John 1:14

and was crucified
Matt. 20:19, John 19:18, Rom. 5:6, 8, 2 Cor. 13:4

also for us
Rom. 5:8, 2 Cor. 5:15

under Pontius Pilate.
Matt. 27:2, 26, 1 Tim 6:13

He suffered
1 Pet. 2:21, Heb. 2:10

and was buried.
Mark 15:46, 1 Cor. 15:4

And the third day
Matt. 27:63, 28:1, 1 Cor. 15:4

He rose again
Mark 16:6, 2 Tim. 2:8

according to the Scriptures
Ps. 16:10, Luke 24:25-27, 1 Cor. 15:4

and ascended
Luke 24:51, Acts 1:9

Into heaven
Mark 16:19, Acts 1:11

and sits at the right hand of the Father.
Ps. 110:1, Matt. 26:64, Acts 7:56, Heb. 1:3

And He will come again
Jn. 14:3, 1 Thes. 4:16

with glory
Matt. 16:27, 24:30, 25:31, 26:64, Mark. 8:38, Col. 3:4

to judge
Matt. 25:31-46, Acts 17:31

both the living and the dead,
Acts 10:42, 1 Pet. 4:5

whose kingdom
John 18:36, 2 Tim. 4:1, 18

will have no end.
Luke 1:33, Rev. 11:15, Ps. 145:13

The Holy Spirit

And I believe in the Holy Spirit,
Matt. 28:19, Acts 13:2

The Lord
2 Cor. 3:17

And giver of life,
John 6:63, Rom. 7:6, 8:2, 2 Cor. 3:6

who proceeds from the father
John 14:16-17

and the Son,
John 15:26, Rom. 8:9, Gal. 4:6

Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped
Luke 4:8, John 4:24

and glorified
John 4:24, 1 Tim. 1:17

Who spoke by the prophets.
1 Pet. 1:10-11, 2 Pet 1:21

And I believe in one
1 Cor. 10:16-17, 12:12-13

Holy
Eph. 3:16-17, 5:27, 1 Pet. 2:9

Catholic
1 Cor. 1:2

and Apostolic
Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14

Church,
Acts 20:28, Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:24, Heb. 12:23, 1 Pet. 2:9

I acknowledge one Baptism
John 3:5, Rom. 6:3, Eph. 4:5

For the remission of sins,
Acts 2:38, 1 Pet. 3:21, Tit. 3:5

And I look for the resurrection of the dead
1 Thes. 4:16, 1 Cor. 15:12-13, 16, 52

And the life of the world to come.
1 Cor 15:54-57, Rev. 22:5

Amen.
Ps. 41:13, 2 Cor. 1:20

A discussion of music styles in the church

The debate rages on. Should music in the church be solemn and reverent, or celebratory and boisterous? Should we sing hymns only, or is contemporary music acceptable? Are rock bands in church sacrilegious, or merely a matter of taste? Are emotional expressions suspect? Is it unseemly to desire intimacy in worship? Is doctrinal depth required in worship music, or are simple expressions acceptable?

Let’s Factcheck Bernie’s Medicare For All Claims - by Matthijs Tieleman

Found here. A good article.
-----------------------

Only hours before the NBC Democratic primary debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders released his single-payer healthcare plan. The Sanders campaign named the plan “Medicare for all,” and the name is almost as deceptive as the plan itself.

Sanders promises that, if he were elected president, all Americans would have full health insurance without limits: no deductibles, no copays. Sanders claimed in the debate that his administration would pay for this program through tax reform (read: increase). Sanders claims that single-payer healthcare systems guarantee lower costs.

One of the most striking of Sanders’ arguments for the program is that all “other industrialized nations” have a similar program, so the United States should, too. But do all other “industrialized nations” have the healthcare Sanders envisions? And is single-payer healthcare truly that much cheaper?

Does New Jersey multi-millionaire and Republican candidate for Governor share our Montana values?

The Left is desperate to find something, anything, on Gianforte. Here is a recent email I received.

First, notice how they characterize him as a "New Jersey multi-millionaire," which is an effort to paint him as an interloper, an outsider. So I wonder, how long must someone live in Montana before one is considered part of the community?

According to this article, Gianforte started Rightnow Technologies in 1997 from his spare bedroom in Bozeman, and this bio says he moved here in 1995. That more than 20 years in Montana. So, is it proper to brand him as a "New Jersey" anything? I think not.

Further, the article states he started the company with about $50,000 and no outside capital. From that we can assume he wasn't a multi-millionaire at that point. Thus he became a multi-millionaire AFTER he moved to Montana. So the first four words of the email are all false.

Next, they charge he "supported groups that want to privatize national forests." after an extensive search, I could find no statement by Gianforte that he wants to privates public lands.

The charge that he is against Social Security is bogus. Here's Gianforte's actual remarks, spoken at the Montana Bible College:

"There's nothing in the Bible that talks about retirement. And yet it's been an accepted concept in our culture today. Nowhere does it say, 'Well, he was a good and faithful servant, so he went to the beach.' It doesn't say that anywhere."

"The example I think of is Noah. How old was Noah when he built the ark? 600. He wasn't like, cashing Social Security checks, he wasn't hanging out, he was working. So, I think we have an obligation to work. The role we have in work may change over time, but the concept of retirement is not biblical."

Several things should jump out at you. First, he is speaking to a Christian audience about matters of faith, not making a stump speech. Second, he is explaining a personal belief about retirement, not telling us what he would do if elected. Third, what he intends to do about senior citizens is not mentioned. 
Last charge, that he refuses to answer questions regarding how much money he will spend on his campaign. However, I could find instance of him being asked this question, let alone any record of him refusing to answer such a question. 
But more to the point, what difference does it make if he spends his own money rather than someone else's? I would think that his willingness to commit his own money is noble. Democrats excel spending other peoples' money. But here's a guy they criticize because he might spend his own money. It's an empty complaint.

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