A Rebuttal to Benjamin Corey’s Attack Against the Atonement - BY BRANDON HINES

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Hot in the heels of our recent post regarding the atonement is this post. One particular question was of interest to us, which is published here.

We should say that We're not interested in Benjamin Corey or what he asserted, or what his political or moral stances are. We shall deal only with the claims of Mr. Hines.

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

Benjamin Corey, a Pro-Gay, Anti-Gun pacifist, has recently put out a series of articles with attacks (In the form of questions) against Penal Substitutionary Atonement. If you don’t know what that word is, Penal Substitutionary Atonement basically means that Jesus died in our place. Jesus suffered the wrath of God so that we do not have to. (Here is our first quibble. Jesus did not suffer the wrath of God. He was not punished for our sin. There is no NT scripture that says such a thing. Jesus bore OUR wrath and carried OUR condemnation to the cross, where it was nailed [Col 2:14-15]. Our sins were disarmed. But God was not mad at Jesus. God did not penalize Jesus.)

Women seek bill of rights in Bozeman - By Gail Schontzler Chronicle Staff Writer

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

This is a horribly fawning article by a supposed journalist. Ms. Schontzler simply regurgitates the talking points as if they were incontestable facts. And this isn't the first time. 

Truly embarrassing.
-------------

Lots of working women feel unhappy that they’re paid less than men. (What women feel is irrelevant. The facts matter. Well, perhaps not to Ms. Schontzler.)

Franke Wilmer (A leftist professor who seems to be full of herself and her accomplishments.)

is trying to do something about it. (Actually, she is trying to parlay the disaffection stoked by leftists like herself into more money and more political power.)

Wilmer, a professor (Um, leftist professor. It would be helpful if the journalist was as quick to assign labels to the extreme Left as she tends to do with the Right.)

More thoughts from an 80 year old - Jeanette Swim

11/11/09 - I created this world for you to enjoy. John 10:10. I have loved you with an everlasting ove. I want you to love this way totally. Love people as they are.

4/27/15 - Seek me first. Matt 6:33. Yes, seek me first, last, and always. I am always with you. You know this by my presence. I am omni-present. You can go nowhere without me. I am in you.

11/1/16 - I am taking care of everything in your life. Leave everything in my hands. Thank you Lord. I know you are my blessed controller over all my life. You created me for your purposes.

FISKING THE NEW YORKER IN DEFENSE OF DELICIOUS CHICKEN - by Larry Correia

Found here.

This ruthless analysis is so good I'm posting it in full. By the way, I think the author for providing me with the word "fisking." It's what I do on this blog, and now I have a name of it.

***Alert*** Contains coarse language.
------------------

The New Yorker magazine is always smug and pretentious, but this is special even by their standards. They took a brief break from ranting about Trump and all those dumb, inferior, red state hicks who voted for him, to instead rant about fried chicken and all those dumb, inferior, red state hicks who like it. Also, capitalism and religion are bad, because why not?

This article is particularly breathless and freaked out. I recommend reading the actual article once by itself, just to absorb the full effect.

Personally I only eat Chik-fil-A’s delicious Hate Chicken like once or twice a year, so it’s not like I’m a big fan, but as a capitalist 1%er, red state, chicken eating, cow expert, I am compelled to fisk this bit of literary brilliance. As usual the original will be in italics, my comments will be in bold.

From: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-gastronomy/chick-fil-as-creepy-infiltration-of-new-york-city 

Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For - Jesse Myerson

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

Plowing through this superficial idiocy required a gargantuan effort. The author casually makes banal assertions as if they're self-evident truths, and constructs a straw man of epic proportions.

I can assure you that every one of the author's solutions will require more government.

Please excuse my sarcasm as you read.
----------------

Guaranteed jobs, universal basic incomes, public finance and more

It's a new year, but one thing hasn't changed: The economy still blows. (You mean none of the government's huge spending initiatives helped? None of the financial safeguards imposed via regulation and legislation prevented this? I wonder why?)

Five years after Wall Street crashed, (Wall Street didn't crash, the system crashed. Government oversight crashed. Leftist initiatives crashed. And the average person paid the price, since none of the perpetrators were held to account. Thanks, Obama.)

America's banker-gamblers have only gotten richer, while huge swaths of the country are still drowning in personal debt, tens of millions of Americans remain unemployed – and the new jobs being created are largely low-wage, sub-contracted, part-time grunt work. (What happened to all the "shovel ready" jobs? Rebuilding the infrastructure with the stimulus? Why didn't thinks improve under Obama?)

Millennials have been especially hard-hit by the downturn, which is probably why so many people in this generation (like myself) regard capitalism with a level of suspicion that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. (Hmmm. He thinks capitalism is at fault. Clueless.)

But that egalitarian impulse isn't often accompanied by concrete proposals about how to get out of this catastrophe. (In a self-congratulatory mode, the author thinks that what he will propose is uniquely "concrete.")

Jonathan Edwards and Why I am a Cessationist - by Jeff Robinson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Regular readers will know that we have been searching for someone to provide a biblical explanation of cessationism. The author is actually quite charitable in his presentation, but quotes no Scripture. In fact, he makes no case at all for cessationism.
-------------

I’ve been a Southern Baptist all my life, and my Pentecostal/charismatic friends in high school good-naturedly referred to my congregation as “the frozen chosen.” I never fully understood what they meant by that phrase until I attended, at the invitation of a friend, a charismatic revival service.

At First Baptist Church, we sang from the hymnal and quietly listened to the preached Word. The closest thing to disorder was an occasional “amen” or “preach it, brother” during the sermon. (The author has an interesting criteria for there being "disorder." Apparently, anything beyond sitting in a pew in complete silence is disorderly, but an occasional outburst is not disorderly.)

A Quiz on the atonement - Tim Challies

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

When we found this quiz we thought it would be worthwhile to take it and see what are the author's views. We were surprised to learn that there are some what we would consider to be false understandings contained within it. 

We answered according to our understanding and got a 69%. Here are the ones we got wrong with an analysis of each. The slides do not appear in the order presented by the quiz.
------------------

The statement reads, "The word 'atonement' means to make amends by blotting out an offense." we answered false, but the author considers this a true statement. The author then quotes a theologian, not the Bible. 

The word "atonement" in the Hebrew means to "cover over." There is no indication that atonement means to blot out, but rather, atonement essentially hides the transgression from God.

In the Greek the meaning is a little more nuanced. The KJV translates λαστήριον as "propitiation," whereas the NIV uses the word "atonement." We believe that rendering the word "atonement" is not accurate, since in the NT a new concept is being taught. The atonement in the OT covered over sin, but the blood of Jesus completely forgives sin and washes us clean. 

So λαστήριον suggests bringing the recipient into line with God's character by way of His transformative power, a quite different idea.

The writer of Hebrews makes it clear that the OT sacrifices did not blot out sin. He. 10:4: because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. We conclude, therefore, that the concept of atonement is an OT concept, whereas Christ's death on the cross exceeds that.

This makes the answer to the quiz "false." The author is wrong.
***

Bethel Prosperity Preacher, Kris Vallotton, Has New Corvette “Keyed” - by Reverend Anthony Wade

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

I have no intention of defending Kris Vollotton specifically, since I don't know a lot about him. But the author seems to know everything about him, including whether or not he is saved. So it is the author's presentation we are examining here.
--------------



Kris Vollotton with his Corvette sports car.

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. — 2Thessalonians 2: 9-12 (ESV)

There is little doubt to those who believe that we are living in the end times. The groans of childbirth grow closer and closer together. Wars, rumors of wars, frequency of earthquakes, all abound. The love of most growing colder by the day. Things that were not allowed in society just 50 years ago are mainstream television fodder today. Those who walk along the broad path to destruction grow by the minute as people continue to gather around themselves people who will say what their itching ears want to hear. That sin doesn’t matter. That they are the head and not the tail. That God wants them rich beyond their greedy dreams of avarice. (Now that the author has polluted the well regarding Vollotton with a plethora of accusations, he will pretend he didn't really mean to include him. Except for one of them...)



This was the car recently bought by Kris Vollotton’s wife (pictured) for his birthday.

Kris Vallotton specializes in that last one. ("God wants them rich beyond their greedy dreams of avarice." Knowing Vollotton's heart and motives because of his ownership of a Corvette, the author will impugn and mock him.)

Ultimate Party Foul - NHTSA

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

With the weight of government behind it, UPF sends a message to teenagers: "If you are caught drinking and driving underage, your social life stops, but your friends' social lives won't." 

Then we are presented with a web page that assaults the eyes.

Now, this is a screen grab. The actual website is in constant jerky movement. Apparently this is what is required nowadays for our short attention span youths.

Dollars for Decency - by Robert Reich

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich, and all the usual hypocritical leftists, are all in a twist regarding Laura Ingraham's criticism of David Hogg. Their moral preening way exceeds the size of the supposed crime.

Here's Ingraham's tweet:

Pretty innocuous. But Dr. Reich calls it a "cruel, ad hominem" attack. And then a "venal, personal attack." 

But shall we consider Dr. Reich's own use of language? "Narcissists are dangerous because they think only about themselves. Megalomaniacs are dangerous because they think only about their power and invincibility. A narcissistic megalomaniac who’s unconstrained – and who’s also president of the United States – is about as dangerous as they come." Apparently is is perfectly acceptable when Dr. Reich does it.

What's that you say? Hogg is only 17? Well, dear reader, Hogg chose to enter the public sphere and express his opinion. He forfeits his "victim" status as soon as he engages in advocacy. He's no longer a victim, he's made himself a part of the issue and is therefore his opinions are subject to all scrutiny.

So we note that Hogg himself says outrageous things. He seems to be able to spew profanity-laced tirades with impunity:

Where's the outrage, Dr. Reich? Is this the way you would want your son to speak? Is this really an "eloquent advocate for gun control?"