Disclaimer: Some postings contain other author's material. All such material is used here for fair use and discussion purposes.

Friday, June 30, 2017

Bernie Sanders: Capitalist Pig - by Daniel Greenfield


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

When Bernie Sanders first came to Vermont, he bought a shack with a dirt floor with unemployment money. Last year, Bernie joined the company of Vermont’s 1% and bought his third home.

The money that Bernie used his way to break the $1 million mark and buy his way into the 1% came from the $27 donors he touted during his campaign. Other campaigns were funded by billionaires. But the folks paying for Bernie’s private Delta 767 with its menu of herb crusted lamb loin, chocolate ganache, fine cheeses and white wine were ordinary people who would never be allowed to fly on it.

Bernie could live large on their donations, but he couldn’t directly pocket their money. Not unless he figured out how to sell them something of his own. And that’s how Bernie joined the 1%.

Our Revolution, Bernie’s book, which was also the name of his new organization, sold for $27. According to Bernie, that was the average size of his donations. The actual number was $86, but truth and Bernie have always had only the loosest of relationships. And Bernie supporters were no longer giving $27 to subsidize a campaign, a cause, Bernie’s jet and his consultants, but his wallet and his summer home.

Bernie sold his supporters for $27 a head to a multinational corporation in exchange for $795,000. His book is named after Our Revolution, a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization that he set up to influence elections and which can accept unlimited amounts of money from donors without disclosing them.

According to Our Revolution’s former organizing director, it was set up that way to "take big checks from billionaires."

Bernie Sanders can’t legally be involved in running his own organization. But he can cash in on a book which has the same name as that organization. The distinctions are bound to be lost on his supporters just as they didn’t understand what it meant when Bernie didn’t cap the commissions of his consultants.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

The Case for Cessationism Stands - by Tom Pennington

Found here.  My comments in bold.


-------------------
This is a long and convoluted article that references and adds to an ongoing debate. I will do my best to distill the elements of this piece to facilitate my commentary. You can read my prior response to Tim Challies here.
------------------------

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Seinfeld "Sermon" Inspires Andy Stanley - NOT The Bible - by Chris Rosebrough

Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------

This article is a perfect example of the problem with being the doctrinal police. At some point you start picking nits in your continual quest for horrendous heresy. You start to become consumed with every statement made by alleged false teachers. It's tunnel vision, where you're unable to see anything except the perceived violators of your doctrine. 

So here the author is hammering Andy Stanley, not for doctrinal error, but because he based his sermon on an idea from a T.V. show. Apparently pop culture references are now considered errant teaching.

From this we are supposed to conclude that Andy Stanley is a false teacher for doing this unbiblical thing. But is it unbiblical? Well, no. It may shock you to learn that Paul employed the very same technique: 
Ac. 17:22-23, 28 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD... 28 `For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, `We are his offspring.’
This is what we mean by tunnel vision. Under the guise of defending the faith, the author neglects what the Bible record reveals to us. He cannot see anything that contravenes his preconceptions.

Now, we must mention we am not defending Andy Stanley. We've never heard him speak until we watched the video below. Our purpose is to point out that there isn't necessarily a heretic under every rock. 

One last thing. The author posts a 6 minute video, and directs his readers to a link to the entire sermon, implying that it's substandard. You can bet that few of his readers will watch the entire sermon, and will make their negative judgments solely based on the limited evidence of that 6 minutes.

The sermon centers on James 1:22-25, to not just be hearers but doers of the word, and Stanely spends a good bit of time talking about the passage. Hardly "window dressing." And interestingly, he also preaches Christ crucified (26:30). We're willing to bet that the author did not listen to the whole sermon himself.
---------------------------

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Christians and the death penalty - FB conversation

As a Christian, I have a hard time reconciling the notion that someone who claims Christ and being pro-life can be for the death penalty.
Comment
Aaron: All good and valid points, but who are we as fallen individuals to decide who has a right to live and die, based on their crime? There is a fine line between Grace, Righteousness, and Judgement. I for one don't think I can make the decision, how can anybody else be ready, and qualified to decide that someone dies.
Brian: There are two main reasons I have been opposed tho the death penalty as a Christian. 

From 
Genesis to Revelation the Bible says time and time again that one of the ways God identifies himself is a God of justice. It's His character and literally a part of who God is. The justice system in the USA has been shown time and time again to be unjust socially as well as individually. Wrongful convictions are sadly not uncommon in our country. On that basis alone as a Christian I cannot support the death penalty and the potential of sending an innocent person to death. 

Additionally how can we claim to be followers of Jesus and support the death penalty when the One we follow was unjustly convicted and then executed by state and religious leaders? I believe the words of Jesus "I have come that you may have life and have it more abundantly" are core to the way of Christ. God chose to meet injustice and execution with resurrection. The death penalty is completely contrary to the ways of Christ.
Rich:  If it's reprehensible to execute what may turn out to be an innocent man, then it must be reprehensible to send a possibly innocent man to jail for 20 years. By that logic, no one should be sent to jail because of the possibility that they're innocent..Indeed, then what's the point in having a trial? Why bother to arrest them? What's the point of having a police force, if there's even the slightest possibility of the innocence of the person?

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

A Simple Explanation of Monergism - by John Hendryx / The Heresy of Monergism - By Robin Phillips

Found here. I also posted an article critical of monergism below. The contrast is interesting to me because of the binary thinking on both sides. The presumption is that it has to be one way or the other, but what if it's both? God is not a binary being, and is perfectly capable of simultaneously 100% in control of everything and the sole actor in our salvation while still allowing 100% free will.

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

Monergism simply means that it is God who gives ears to hear and eyes to see. It is God alone who gives illumination and understanding of His word that we might believe; It is God who raises us from the dead, who circumcises the heart; unplugs our ears; It is God alone who can give us a new sense that we may, at last, have the moral capacity to behold His beauty and unsurpassed excellency. The apostle John recorded Jesus saying to Nicodemus that we naturally love darkness, hate the light and WILL NOT come into the light (John 3:19, 20). And since our hardened resistance to God is thus seated in our affections, only God, by His grace, can lovingly change, overcome and disarm our rebellious disposition. The natural man, apart from the quickening work of the Holy Spirit, will not come to Christ on his own since he is at enmity with God and cannot understand spiritual things. Shining a light into a blind man's eyes will not enable his to see, since, as we all know, sight requires new eyes or some restoration of his visual faculty. Likewise, reading or hearing the word of God itself cannot elicit saving faith in the reader (or hearer) unless the Spirit first "germinates" the seed of the word in the heart, so to speak, which then infallibly gives rise to our faith and union with Christ. Like unto Lydia whom "the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul," (Acts 16:14) He must also give all His people spiritual life and understanding if their hearts are to be open and thus turn (respond) to Christ in faith.

Monday, June 19, 2017

Subjectivity and the Will of God - by John MacArthur

Found here. My comments in bold.
-------------------------

John MacArthur sets us up with carefully chosen words designed to tilt the debate in his favor. He warns us to not rely on "subjective" "mumbo-jumbo," contrasting this with "objective" truth. He is thus able to dismiss the subject a priori by applying pejorative characterizations.
-----------------------

If you rely on internal, subjective messages and promptings from the Lord, what prevents you from imagining the input you want from Him? (Dr. MacArthur need only consult his Bible. 
Ro. 8:5-9 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. 9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you.
Ro. 8:14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Paul tells us that we are controlled by the Holy Spirit, and He is at work in us and empowers us to set our minds on what the Spirit desires. These are not random "imaginations," but the Spirit at work in us. He leads us into sonship.

Thus, there is this first mechanism for safeguarding our thoughts: The Holy Spirit.)

Friday, June 16, 2017

Biblical Proof Jesus Died on Friday NOT Wednesday - By Chris Rosebrough

Found here. My comments in bold.
--------------------

Several years ago we wrote a post regarding what day was Jesus crucified. We were compelled to do a little investigation about the 3 days and 3 nights because the traditional explanation regarding a Friday crucifixion and a Sunday resurrection just wasn't satisfying.

Our dissatisfaction centers around two passages:

Mk. 15:42-16:1 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.
44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45 When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph.
46 So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.
Mk. 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.
So in that passage the women bought spices after the Sabbath. Now, compare that to Lk. 23:52-24:1:
Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body. 53 Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no-one had yet been laid. 
54 It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. 55 The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. 56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.
Lk. 24:1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.
Here the women prepared the spices before the Sabbath. The obvious question is, how could the women buy spices after the Sabbath (Mark), but prepare them before the Sabbath (Luke)?

This is why some have postulated that there were two Sabbaths that week. Besides the regular Saturday Sabbath, there was also a Sabbath for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This would fit the Wednesday crucifixion scenario perfectly by explaining how the women were able to buy spices after the Sabbath and prepare them before the Sabbath. 
  • Wednesday afternoon, the Day of Preparation: Jesus was crucified and buried late in the day.
  • Wednesday night sunset, the beginning of Thursday - night one.
  • Thursday, the Feast of Unleavened Bread Sabbath. The women rested.
  • Thursday day - day one.
  • Thursday night sunset, the beginning of Friday - night two.
  • Friday, the second Day of Preparation, the women bought and prepared the spices.
  • Friday day - day two.
  • Friday night sunset, the beginning of Saturday - night three.
  • Saturday Sabbath. The women rested.
  • Saturday day - day three.
  • Saturday night after sunset, Jesus rose.
  • Sunday sunrise, the women brought the spices and perfume to anoint Jesus' body and instead found the open tomb.
That's our scenario. 

Below, the author attempts to deal with the Friday crucifixion problem in a novel way. He does so with an arrogance that is troubling.

Further, these are the kinds of doctrinal debates that frustrate us. The author defends a tradition against, who? Is there someone who is corrupting correct doctrine by proposing an alternative understanding? And all this for something so inconsequential?
-------------

Thursday, June 15, 2017

WHAT’S THE PROBLEM WITH JOEL OSTEEN? - Philip Wagner

Found here.  Another take on the much-criticized mega-pastor.
---------------------------

A couple of years ago Joel Osteen was preparing to have a “Night of Hope” at Dodger Stadium. Since the Dodgers are in our home city, Los Angeles, I wanted to support the effort. I mentioned to our congregation about the upcoming crusade and helping out so we could be a part of reaching thousands of people who would make decisions to follow Christ.

A few days later someone said to me,
“We’re supporting Joel Osteen? He is pretty controversial you know.”

I was surprised.
I thought to myself, “Joel Osteen, controversial? How could that be? He preaches the most clear and simple gospel message a person could hear.”

I had not been keeping up with what people and other leaders were saying on the Internet.

One local pastor said to me later, “I hear you are supporting the Joel Osteen Crusade.”
I said, “Yes I am. He reaches thousands of people for Jesus Christ, he’s in our city, I want to be a part of it.”

The pastor responded, “I’m not going to, I can’t go for all that positive gospel stuff.”

I don’t even know what that means!??!
Are we supposed to be preaching the negative gospel?
What is the “positive” gospel?
Our sins are forgiven? God loves us – just like we are? God has something special for each of us to do?
Just sounds like the ‘regular-amazing-outstanding-full of mercy- gospel’ to me! You know… ‘Amazing Grace’ …and all that.

In the last year I’ve discovered there are many outspoken Christians and leaders who don’t seem to like Joel Osteen.

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion – even if it is ill informed.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Pete Swimm's last week May 26 through June 3, 2017 - By Jeannette Swimm

6/10/17

What I am going to tell you about Pete's last week is mostly from the Lord through scriptures and thoughts put into my mind and a dream and visions Pete received.

First Pete wanted me to thank you and also my family and I want to thank you for many, many prayers and the wonderful loving support, especially during these last three years.

Acts 13:36 "For David after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep and was laid unto his fathers." I believe this applies to all of us.

The Lord blessed us with peace and comfort through His preparing and helping us through this most difficult and heartbreaking last week of Pete's life.

Friday evening I opened my Bible at random and came across the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Just before this He said to Martha -----

John 11:25 and 26: "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection and life, he that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die.
Believeth thou this?"

This was confirmed on Sunday in "Our Daily Bread" devotional. Also in this devotion on Sunday was--- Ps. 116:15: "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." Pete loves the Lord and is a faithful servant.

In the middle of the night I heard in my mind---- Job 1: 21b "The Lord gave and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the the name of the Lord." I received this scripture first in the middle of night when my Mom was put on life support in Jan. 1988.

My Mom loved and grew red Azaleas. Peggy gave me a red Azalea several years ago for Mother's Day. It never has bloomed again UNTIL earlier this year. I thought of my mom and wondered if she was sending a message of love from heaven. About two weeks ago I again got a red bud on this same
plant. I like to believe my Mom is sending love, peace and comfort from Heaven to me.

Pete had a dream. He wasn't here. He was some place else. He looked ahead and he saw busy, happy and joyful people. He didn't recognize anyone, but they were not strangers. The next evening he opened his eyes and had a vision. He saw a white light. He said he wanted to see his family
one last time. l believe he was waiting for his son Lee and daughter-in-law, They live in Madison, WI. and they didn't get here in time.

The next day he opened his eyes and saw three beings, not human, sitting on three chairs. He felt like they were waiting for him.

During the night he felt a soft touch on his shoulder. This gave him comfort.

The most amazing thing to me. I was sitting with him on Friday and he said he saw two white circles of light on our white plastic chair. I said they were his ministering angels. Heb. 1:14 "Are they not all ministering saints sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation." I asked the Lord if I could see them? But they were only for Pete.

We all need to pray, talk to and listen to the Lord. We all need to be observant to things around us to know and understand what the Lord is telling us. I believe the Lord uses our lives, the good, the bad and the ugly, to influence people around us for His own purpose.

I Thes 5:18 "In everything give thanks for this is the will of God in Christ concerning you. I can truly and honestly thank, praise, bless, magnify and glorify the Lord for taking Pete to Heaven to be with Him.


Jeanette Swimm
6278 Pleasant street
Manhattan, Mt. 59741

How Can Christ’s Death Satisfy Divine Justice? - Q and A by WIlliam Lane Craig

Found here. An interesting explanation of Jesus' sacrificial death. However, it is based on the idea of Jesus being punished for our sins. But God did not punish Jesus. Jesus perfectly did the will of the Father, and in him he is well pleased.

Jesus bore our sins. He carried them to the cross and nailed them there and made a public spectacle of them. He carried our infirmities and took our shame away. He is our burden-bearer, not the one who God punished.
------------------


Q: I believe in penal substitution because otherwise forgiveness would be impossible and thus there would be no point in seeking forgiveness from God. Everyone would have no choice but to go to Hell.

However, how should I answer someone who says, "why is it that God the Father can satisfy the requirements of justice by punishing Jesus Christ (an innocent party) in my stead but Lance Ito couldn't satisfy the requirements of justice by punishing an infant (an innocent party) in O. J. Simpson's stead?" I have no real response except "God said it so there."

Tomislav
United States

Friday, June 9, 2017

The strange origins of the GOP ideology that rejects caring for the poor - by Jack Jenkins

Found here.
--------------------
You can be sure that if a leftist is explaining Scripture to you, it will be wrong. 

Our subject for today filters his Bible through the rose colored glasses of leftist ideology. He will also be unable to distinguish between an individual's call to be compassionate and a government program that extracts money from people.

And finally, he will rather sloppily misappropriate isolated O.T. texts intended for the Jews, and try to make them apply not only to Christians, but to the processes of our government as well. 
--------------------


No, that’s not what Jesus says.

The ongoing Capitol Hill brawl over health care and budget cuts is getting Biblical.

In recent months, GOP lawmakers have taken to spouting Christian scripture to defend conservative fiscal policy and their effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The first example came from Rep. Roger Marshall (R-KS), who argued in early March that Jesus would support his criticism of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, as aspect of health care reform that extended insurance coverage to additional low-income Americans.

“Just like Jesus said, ‘The poor will always be with us,’” Marshall told Stat News, quoting the Bible. “There is a group of people that just don’t want health care and aren’t going to take care of themselves.” (Is this statement true or false? Well, it is true. In fact, 8 million people paid the ACA fine last year. 11.3% of the country is uninsured - more than 36 million people. Clearly there must be a lot of people who simply don't want coverage.)

He added that “morally, spiritually, socially,” some poor and homeless people “just don’t want health care.”

Marshall’s comments triggered a flurry of criticism from several sources, including more progressive faith writers who chided him for rebuking the traditional Christian instruction to help the poor regardless of their personal choices. (What teaching might this be? I have never heard such a thing.

A couple of paragraphs from here, the author will present to us a person who advocates for government programs for the poor. This person will allude to Leviticus chapter 19:9-10 in support of his ideas. He will suggest this is binding on all of us. Indeed, binding even on government. 

However, just a few verses later in Lev. 19:15, we find this verse: “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly." I mention this because of the author's assertion that we should help people without regard for their choices. But the book of Leviticus, favorably cited below, contravenes the author's assertion that we should not care about peoples' life choices.)