The real reason Social Security is going broke And how to save it forever! - by ROBERT REICH

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Friends,

I run into lots of young people who don’t believe Social Security will be there for them when they retire.

They have reason for concern. The trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund — of which yours truly was once a member (Dr. Reich is apparently proud of his work as a former SS trustee. We were unable to document this claim, and his linkedin profile doesn't mention it.)

— just released their annual report on Social Security’s future. The report says Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until 2034 but then faces a significant funding shortfall. After 2034, it can pay only about 80 percent of scheduled benefits.

The biggest reason Social Security is running out of money is not what you (and the media) think it is: that boomer retirees are, or will soon be, soaking it all up. (Actually, it is already out of money.)

The Social Security trustees anticipated the boom in boomer retirements. This is why Social Security was amended back in 1983, to gradually increase the age for collecting full retirement benefits from age 65 to 67. That change is helping finance the boomers’ retirement. (Oh, so the trustees delayed benefits? Isn't delaying benefits the same thing as cutting benefits?

Dr. Reich is now going to make his argument. We will allow him to do so before we join back in.)

So what did the trustees fail to anticipate? Answer: the degree of income inequality in 21st century America. 

Put simply, a big part of the American working population is earning less than the Social Security trustees (including me) anticipated decades ago — and therefore paying less in Social Security payroll tax.

Had the pay of American workers kept up with what had been the trend decades ago — and kept up with their own increasing productivity — their Social Security payroll tax payments would have been enough to keep the program flush.

At the same time, a much larger chunk of the nation’s total income is going to the top than was expected decades ago.

Here’s the thing: Income subject to the payroll tax is capped. Every dollar of earnings in excess of the cap is not subject to Social Security payroll taxes. This year’s cap is $160,200.

The Social Security cap is adjusted every year for inflation, but the adjustment is tiny compared to what’s happened to incomes at the top.

As the rich have become far richer, more and more of the total income earned by Americans has become concentrated at the top. Therefore, more and more total income escapes the Social Security payroll tax. (Dr. Reich's argument is specious. SS is predominately funded by the middle class on down. This is the way it has always been. The SS cap by definition defines the program as being funded by earners other than the rich, ostensibly because SS benefits are almost all paid to people other than the rich.

Therefore, it is impossible for the trustees to fail to account for "inequality" because any supposed shift in income from being SS taxable to not being SS taxable does not change the overall taxable amount. Dr. Reich would need to demonstrate that there was less actual revenue obtained because because more earners were coming up short of the cap. In other words, there would need to be a gap of sorts between the highest earners under the cap and the cap itself.

Let's take a look at the revenues and expenditures of the SS trust fund to see if we can discern the results of the 1983 reform of SS he mentioned above, and any supposed effect of income inequality:

Notice that subsequent to 1983 the SS deficit increased for several years until the Reagan booming economy kicked in about 1986. This economic upturn had a secondary benefit of reducing SS deficits. The reductions in the SS deficits continued all the way until the early 2000s recession. The deficits we fairly small through GW Bush's presidency, until the Great Recession hit. Then for four straight years the SS deficit was in excess of one trillion dollars, then stayed fairly level until COVID. Then they exploded.

So that's the deficits, which are clearly economic-related. 

Now for the revenues. Revenues increased every year until the early 2000s recession, but started upward again in 2004. There was another drop in the Great Recession, but the recovery was relatively quick. Thereafter there was never another drop in revenue.

Conclusions: The 1983 reforms had no discernible effects. And, there is no evidence that inequality has inhibited revenues or influenced expenditures. Rather, economic rises and falls clearly are a primary influence of both SS revenues and expenditures.)

The obvious solution to Social Security’s funding shortfall 11 years from now is to lift the cap so that the super-rich pay more in Social Security taxes. (Of course, the answer always is more taxes. But as we have seen, it's not a revenue problem. The problem is structural. SS cannot work, since it relies on redistribution. Like every government payout program, there will always be more and more takers and fewer and fewer payers.)

To make sure it’s the super-rich — and not the upper middle class — who pay, (Why?)

it makes sense to eliminate the cap altogether on earnings in excess of, say, $400,000. (Making changes that increase taxes on high income earners is a tacit admission that SS is not a retirement plan, it is a wealth redistribution plan. This is because it is a tax increase towards people who will not receive any benefit whatsoever. 

If someone is taxed without benefit, that is a welfare program.

By the way, the way Dr. Reich phrases this is very odd. Currently the cap is set at $160,200 of income, after which income is not subject to SS tax. So a worker would pay SS tax until his income exceeded the cap, after which his income above the cap would not be taxed.

But Dr. Reich wants to "eliminate this cap altogether." One would expect that he wants income above $160,200 to be taxed. But wait. Then he says taxes should be levied "on earnings in excess of, say,  $400,000." That means he wants to maintain the non-taxed status of income received between $160,200 and $400,000, above which SS taxes are resumed. 

Does that strike anyone as extremely nonsensical?

Below he will admit he's echoing the Biden plan, which states,

Under current law, the 12.4 percent Social Security (OASDI) employer and employee combined payroll tax rate applies to earnings up to the annual taxable maximum level ($137,700 in 2020).

The Biden plan increases Social Security taxes by creating a “donut hole” in the payroll tax structure. While earnings immediately above the current taxable maximum would continue to be exempt from Social Security taxes, earnings above $400,000 would be taxed at the 12.4 percent rate. However, the new taxes on earnings above $400,000 would not trigger additional benefits.

Over time, the donut hole would disappear and all earnings would be subject to full payroll taxes. The reason for this disappearance is that the annual taxable maximum level ($137,700 in 2020) would continue to grow with average wage growth, as under current law, while the $400,000 threshold would remain fixed. The donut hole, therefore, disappears once the annual taxable maximum level reaches $400,000.

This means a worker would be taxed up to the cap [$160,200 in 2023], then would have a reprieve where there are no SS taxes until the worker's income exceeds $400,000. Strangely, at that point taxation would resume. So there's a window of income with no SS taxation, which incidentally would gradually disappear as the cap increases year by year. So that means the upper middle class will indeed pay at some point, despite Dr. Reich's statement.

But even stranger, why is this something He's advocating for? What are the benefits of carving out the exception? And why would this appeal to a voter? If someone makes, say, $300,000, absolutely nothing changes. 

How does carving out an income window for the upper middle class make any sense, especially one that disappears over the course of a few years? Is the upper middle class a constituency the left wants to attract? Is there some special thing about this band of income which makes it off limits? Telling a voter "We are not going to tax you more for a while" is not a winning campaign strategy, and we certainly know that leftists do these things for no other reason than their political appeal.

It makes no sense.

Further, it is worth noting that the Biden plan includes some pretty substantial SS benefit increases. This means that SS beneficiaries are going to eat up all of that additional tax and more. 

This is hardly the solution Dr. Reich thinks it is. But of course, Dr. Reich isn't looking for a solution, he's parroting The Narrative. The Narrative services The Agenda, and The Agenda is to overthrow the system. It's a power strategy. For the Left, everything is about power.)

As it happens, Joe Biden campaigned for the White House on a plan to do exactly this.

What happened to that plan? The budget Biden proposed last month made no mention of any tax increase linked to Social Security (although it did include tax increases on high earners and corporations as a way to extend the solvency of Medicare by 25 years).

I suspect Biden’s plan for Social Security was a casualty of the bare-knuckled politics surrounding both Social Security and the debt ceiling. Biden doesn’t want to give Republicans any opening to debate Social Security in the coming fight over lifting the ceiling.

Hopefully, he’ll revive his plan for Social Security after that brawl. The long-term future of Social Security depends on it.

What do you think?

Are You Woke? Then Why Are You Still Eating Meat? - By Martha Rosenberg

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

"Woke" is not an intellectual awareness of things previously not understood. "Woke" is not an epiphany that opens one's intellect to engage possibilities not considered. "Woke" isn't an ennobling, affirming embrace of truth.

"Woke" is agendized religion. 

It has a priesthood, dogma, sin and absolution, and an evangelistic fervor that happily invokes the exercise of power over the non-woke. The non-work are heretics, blights on the earth, and are to be shouted down, deplatformed, and excluded from civilized society. They are not tolerated. They are lower forms, evil, unevolved, oppressors and haters; they are un-nuanced thinkers, stuck in their unenlightened understanding.

"Woke" is the imposition of values into every venue of life: Media, entertainment, science, government, church, news media, corporations and business, and literature. "The "woke" philosophy obligates each "woke" person with enforcement obligations to protect the true faith. "Woke" presumes but never demonstrates its moral superiority. "Woke" philosophy is self-evidently true.

But in reality, "woke" isn't the goal. "Woke" is the means. It's a means to an end, and that is the exercise of power over people. It intends to overthrow the "system." It intends to set itself up in your life as the ultimate authority.

And "woke" will not accept no as an answer.

So as we consider the below article, we need to read it in this context. The author is not intending to tell us something true or valuable. Her purpose is not to explain or edify. She is not intent on providing facts or logic.

In fact, veganism isn't relevant except to the degree it is useful. We would be mistaken to engage the author on the basis of the patently dumb claims about veganism. We should not allow the diversion of veganism to to obscure the real issue.

Veganism is useful in service to The Narrative, which is the day's talking points issued by Central Command. The Narrative is one of the primary means used to advance The Agenda, which is the dismantling of the System. The System is our way of life, the way we deal with others, our preconceptions about how society should be organized, and the way our institutions should be constructed.

The Agenda is the overthrow of America.

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

Learning From Those Who Pray All Night - by Amy Medina

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The thing that strikes us about this article is how much culture influences our beliefs, church practices, and doctrines. We think that the way we do church in the western world is the way it should be done. We think our church services should be somber, reverent, orderly, and respectful. We might go to a mid-week meeting or a home group, and rarely, attend a prayer meeting. We spend much time listening to teaching. 

Some of us have heard thousands of sermons.

So what if our emphasis on preaching and Bible study is out of balance? What if we should be more of a praying people? What if our worship ought to be more prominent? What if the Christian community should be gathered together for more than a sermon and a few hymns on a Sunday morning? 

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

1967 Pontiac Lemans budget build - episode two - trunk repair, part one of two

Episode one, introduction.

Episode two, trunk panel install part one.

Episode three, trunk panel install part two.

Episode four, door rust repair.

Episode five, tail light panel and rear crossmember.

Episode six, passenger quarter panel.

Episode seven, driver's quarter panel.

Episode eight, floor pan and rockers, part one.

Episode nine, floor pan and rockers, part two.

Episode ten, frame repair and prep, body drop.

Episode eleven, radiator core support and miscellaneous rust repair.

Episode twelve, trunk repair and more miscellaneous rust repair.

Episode thirteen, fender and inner fender repair.

Episode fourteen, panel prep and block and prime.

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

In this episode I start the replacement of the rusted-out trunk panel. This will be in two parts. This episode will be the preliminary repairs, like the wheelhouses, and episode three will be the actual installation of the trunk pan. Future episodes will feature the passenger compartment floor panel, the rockers, and the rear quarters.

Here's what I started with:

They used the wrong evidence to defend themselves - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata wants Jesus' remarks about those who say "Lord, Lord" to be about the cessation of the miraculous. She thinks that all contemporary prophecy is false, tongues have ceased, and God does not give the gift of healing today. So she reads the passage through the lens of her preconception.

Let's consider the subject verses, Matthew 7:21-23. This is part of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was speaking to the Jews about misconceptions they had regarding what constitutes righteousness (Mt. 5:20). "You have heard that it was said" occurs five times in the sermon, each time to correct a common teaching they had heard. Jesus frequently corrected them, saying, "But I tell you..." It's important that we understand the context and purpose of Jesus' remarks before we draw conclusions. Jesus is speaking to Jews about the Jewish leaders.

Let's quote a larger part of the passage:

Mt. 7:15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

Mt. 7:16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

Mt. 7:17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

Mt. 7:18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

Mt. 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Mt. 7:20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Mt. 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Mt. 7:22 Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’

Mt. 7:23 Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Mt. 7:24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Jesus was making a veiled warning about the teaching of the Pharisees. We can clearly see that He was explaining the need to showing evidence [fruit] of obedience to His commands [put them into practice]. Therefore, those who said they did things in His name were evildoers because they were not bearing good fruit in obedience to His words. 

Further, according to the verses right before, they were going to be denied entry via the narrow gate [Mt. 7:13-14]. So they were false, they were bad trees bearing bad fruit. The axe is at the root of the tree of Israel [Mt. 3:10]. New branches were about to be grafted in [Ro. 11:17]. 

Ms. Prata does not take the time to understand the context. Nor does she quote any Bible verse apart from the subject verse and one other irrelevant verse. What we are left with is empty assertions from her, rather than an explanation of Bible principles.

This passage is not a commentary on the cessation of prophecy, driving out demons, or miracles. 

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

Flawed men and powerful ministry

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered what we think are unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were too lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that there is more than one way to interpret doctrine, more than one way to think about the faith, and more than one way to read the Scriptures. We would not suggest that our way is the only way, or the right way; we are not Bible scholars. But we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to rightly divide the Word of God.

All the songs in the Bible [infographic] - by Jeffrey Kranz

Found here. This is a handy reference, if one is interested in these things.

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

Calvinism: Changing the Meaning of Words to Promote a Theory - by Lighthouse Trails Editors

Found here. A bit inelegantly written, but good material.

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

Female deacons? Women Serving Communion? A Reader asks - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata makes another appearance in our blog, this time to try to explain deaconesses. She labors under some pretty substantial misconceptions. Part of the problem is the very bad translation of 1 Timothy 3:8–13. Another part of the problem is her uncritical acceptance of errant teaching.

We should also note that Ms. Prata writes nearly 1300 words with nary a Scripture quote. This is our continuing complaint about these so-called Bible teachers.

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

What Is Common Grace? - By Josh Maloney

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

In the course of re-examining the doctrines we have been taught, we have been distressed to learn that the Bible too often teaches something else. Pastors simply repeat what they've been taught, and we congregants accept these errors uncritically. Thus misunderstandings and bad teaching is promulgated. 

Such is the case with the doctrine of grace. In the course of our study we have come to understand that meaning of the word "grace" is commonly misunderstood in Christendom. We don't make this statement casually. The traditional meaning is firmly entrenched, and we think it needs to be uprooted. 

The traditional meaning is grace is "undeserved favor." This is incorrect. The Greek word is charis:

preeminently used of the Lord's favor – freely extended to give Himself away to people (because He is "always leaning toward them").

5485 /xáris ("grace") answers directly to the Hebrew (OT) term 2580 /Kaná ("grace, extension-toward"). Both refer to God freely extending Himself (His favor, grace), reaching (inclining) to people because He is disposed to bless (be near) them.

Grace is not undeserved/unmerited kindness. Grace does not identify merit or un-merit. Grace is not giving us what we don't deserve. Undeserved/deserved is not even regarded at all. Rather, grace is God coming near because He loves to be with us and freely bless us, without regard to merit/unmerit. 

Due to this significant misunderstanding of grace, we incorrectly deduce that it means we were undeserving and loathsome to God; and even now after we're saved many of us continue to think we're still in this lowly category. But if we divorce ourselves from the idea that God is measuring and evaluating us to determine what kind of grace he will dispense, we will find what the reality of what grace is.

Further, theologians are disposed to carve up and systematize doctrines, microanalyzing, parsing, inventing terminology, and generally making confused messes. Such is the case here. The author thinks Christians get special grace, while everyone else gets common grace. The Bible does not tell us anything like this, however. 

And we should note that grace is fully found in the person of Jesus Christ: 

Titus 2:11-12 ESV For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age...

Jesus is the ultimate expression of God's desire to lean towards His creation with favor, because He loves to draw near.:

2Co. 5:18-10 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.

Therefore, we can answer the question contained in the title rather easily. Common grace is the idea that God is favorable to everyone, saved or not. God is also favorable to the saved. Thus, common grace is grace. Special grace is grace. There doesn't need to be a distinction if we keep in view the actual biblical meaning of grace.

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

The Asbury Outpouring/Revival/Somethings Going On Autopsy - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Rev. Wade is back with his ugly and obnoxious prose and sour attitude. His perverse glee in pronouncing Asbury as fake is unchristian and frankly, evil. Further, it serves no purpose. It does not edify, build faith, or spur us on to love and good deeds. 

And we should note that as is typical for Rev. Wade, not a single Scripture is quoted or even referenced.

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

The Seven Last Sayings of Christ: A Petition to the Father - by John MacArthur ("Why have you forsaken me?")

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Today's article is a cobbled-together rehash of the Doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. We discuss this false teaching here. We will also elaborate below.

Dr. MacArthur does quote some Scripture, thankfully, but his documentation disappears at the very moments he asserts his Critical Premises. 

Dr. MacArthur is reading through the lens of his doctrine, and that leads him astray.

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

Yikes! More drivel over the national debt! - by Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

One can be sure that if a leftist is going to explain something, it will not be accurate, it will not clarify, and it will not be intended to impart information.

That's because leftists like Dr. Reich are only interested in The Narrative, that is, the talking points and bumper sticker slogans promulgated by Central Command. The Narrative is circulated throughout the media landscape every day, and writers, commentators, and news operations dutifully regurgitate it.

So Dr. Reich pretends to be a truth teller, but he's simply doing his duty to repeat The Narrative, spouting agitprop in service to The Agenda. The Agenda is the dismantling of the system. The system, being racist, unfair, and hurtful to the worker and minorities, must be replaced. 

But in actual fact, none of these issues are important to the Left. They are simply excuses for advancing the leftist dream. So, nothing you will read below will be true, accurate, logical, or helpful. 

This article is The Narrative, which facilitates The Agenda. The reader should keep this in mind at all times.

The left is obsessed with other people's money. They want it. They spend it. The problem has always been spending: 

Last year, the federal government took in a record $4.9 trillion in revenue, more than triple the $1.58 trillion the government collected just 25 years earlier (1997)....

That’s an average increase of more than eight percent a year, far more than the rate of inflation (which has averaged 2.4% annually over the past 25 years) plus the increase in the U.S. population (roughly 0.7% annually). The total of all economic activity in the United States per year (GDP) is currently $26.1 trillion, which means the federal government now claims nearly one-fifth (19.6%) of all dollars for itself, a much higher rate than the long-term average of 16.5 percent.

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

The Right to a Window Should Be as Fundamental as Freedom of Speech - by Nathan J. Robinson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

1220 words written about requiring a right to a window. Seriously. Lacking the ability to think clearly, Mr. Robinson prattles on and on. Reliably loquacious, he substitutes volumes of words for reasoning, as if a barrage of language means intellect. It reads like satire, but when it comes to leftists like Mr. Robinson, we know they have no sense of humor. So we must assume he's actually being serious. 

Constitutionally speaking, there is no justification for his position, but Mr. Robinson doesn't bother with the constitution. Nor does he even posses a rudimentary understanding of it. This is the most troubling thing. The Constitution was written to create, define, and limit government. It does not create rights for The People. 

The powers of The People pre-exist the constitution, which they delegate as they choose via the constitution. The 10th Amendment makes this clear: 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Power is delegated to the government by what's contained the constitution's provisions. If the power isn't delegated, the government can't do it. Other powers are reserved for the states, if the state constitutions delegate them. If powers are not delegated to the federal or state constitutions, then the people retain them.

Thus there can be no right to a window, because the constitution doesn't create rights. Otherwise, the current fashion, the feelings of the majority, or the winds of culture would determine what people have a "right" to. And once the camel's nose is under the tent, there is no end to the rights that can be created out of thin air. For example:

• A Caribbean vacation is good. Boom - it's a constitutional right.
• A new car has substantial benefits. Shazaam - it's a constitutional right.
• A 5000 square foot home clearly is better than a tiny apartment. - Ta-daaaah! Constitutional right.

Last thing: The seriousness with which Mr. Robinson writes about this is concerning. However, we have learned that when it comes to socialists and leftists, what they advocate is seldom important to them. Gay rights, racism, sexism, the poor, or everybody having a window, these things are irrelevant. They are simply convenient. Excuses. Smokescreens.

As we have mentioned in other posts, leftists have one goal in mind: Promulgate The Narrative in service to The Agenda. The Narrative is the talking points and bumper sticker slogans issued every day by Central Command, which appear simultaneously all over the media landscape. 

The Agenda is the dismantling of the system. The system is oppressive and evil. The system is systemically racist. The system needs to be replaced. The Agenda is to install Marxism. 

The Narrative always has the goal of advancing The Agenda. Since Mr. Robinson is a self-admitted Socialist, we must consider this article a being part of The Narrative.

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

Do we still need to forgive even if they never apologize? - by Dr. Guy Richard

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This author has a lot to say about forgiveness and repentance, but precious little Scripture is provided. In fact, only part of one Scripture is even quoted.

His objective is to suggest that forgiveness is contingent on repentance. He never demonstrates this.

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

Flashback Friday: Proudly Discerning - by DEBBIELYNNE KESPERT

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Kespert completely misunderstands the Bible's teaching on spiritual gifts. She wants to reduce the gift of discernment to an intellectual pursuit of the Bible so as to acquire knowledge that refutes false teaching. This is not the gift of discernment.

All spiritual gifts are supernatural endowments, given by the Holy Spirit.

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

Jesus, Our Substitute - by R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We are astounded that a supposed reputable teacher of the Bible can't teach his way out of a paper bag. This is so bad, so poorly reasoned, so poorly presented, so poorly documented, that we must consider Dr. Sproul an unfit teacher of the Bible.

We know this is a severe statement. Perhaps there are instances of Dr. Sproul being a luminary in the field of Bible teacher, but if the below is typical of him, we would doubt it.

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

The Basics -- God's Providence - by Kim Riddlebarger

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

There is nothing basic about this doctrine, or the author's teaching of it. It is convoluted, unconvincing, and at times presumptuous.

The idea of this is to create an artificial distinction between God's direct action (primary cause) and His working through circumstance (secondary causes). Both concepts combine into the idea that God controls everything, either primarily or secondarily. 

But this inference is not supported by the general idea of providence. God "provides" the mechanisms of nature (Is. 40:26), sustains them by His powerful word (He. 1:3) and intervenes in those mechanisms (Mt. 8:26, Mt. 12:15, Ac. 5:16, Ac. 16:26, etc.). He even ordains certain things (2Kg. 19:25, Is. 45:13, Is. 58:12, Ac. 20:22, Ro. 9:21, etc.). But there is no verse in the Bible that tells us God dictates everything. 

In fact, those who believe in providence as the manifestation of God's sovereignty do not assent to the idea that God created evil. They never supply biblical documentation of this, but rather will assert that God allowed evil because in order for his creation to have free will, it must have a choice to do evil.

But free will is a matter that needs to be ascertained, for those who believe in providence also tend to believe there is no free will when it comes to salvation. Calvinists call this irresistible grace.

So, this idea that Godd did not create evil because of free will is simply a dodge and does not explain anything in the context of providence. This is what happens when theologians and Bible teachers attempt to systematize God. They create doctrines, sub-doctrines, and endless parsings of Bible verses in an effort to explain things that God did not reveal.

In fact, we believe that such pursuits are fruitless. Providence does not come to bear on God's purpose for us to worship, serve, bear fruit, evangelize, or live holy lives. Knowing about providence is irrelevant.

Our position is that God is completely sovereign, and knows every detail of everything that has happened and will happen, everywhere. But sovereignty is not control. He is God, therefore He decides His sovereignty on His terms. Sovereignty does not come to bear on free choice, simply because it is God who decides what His sovereignty is and how it operates. 

God certainly can know everything and there still be free choice in man. He has this ability. These are not the binary equations Calvinists suppose they are.

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

1967 Pontiac Lemans budget build - episode one - introduction

Episode one, introduction.

Episode two, trunk panel install part one.

Episode three, trunk panel install part two.

Episode four, door rust repair.

Episode five, tail light panel and rear crossmember.

Episode six, passenger quarter panel.

Episode seven, driver's quarter panel.

Episode eight, floor pan and rockers, part one.

Episode nine, floor pan and rockers, part two.

Episode ten, frame repair and prep, body drop.

Episode eleven, radiator core support and miscellaneous rust repair.

Episode twelve, trunk repair and more miscellaneous rust repair.

Episode thirteen, fender and inner fender repair.

Episode fourteen, panel prep and block and prime.

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

Today, April 1 2023 commences the beginning of work on my 1967 Pontiac Lemans budget build. 

I've had the car for about 2 years, trying really hard to not keep it. I really didn't want to build another one since I already spent more than 10 years building this 1967 Camaro:

But as is so often the case with these things, I succumbed to peer pressure. A couple of cigar buddies razzed me about the car. They said I had the time, the money, the skills, the tools, and the shop. So, they asked, what's stopping me? 

I lacked the motivation.

It's a lot of work. And it takes a lot of time. And it doesn't always go well. There's always hidden damage. Replacement parts don't always fit. It is always harder and takes longer. If building a car was only like it is on TV with Chip Foose, well, that would be different. But building a car at home without a lift and without thousands of dollars of state-of-the-art tools is not easy. 

In addition, the kind of repairs needed for this particular car are major structural issues. Such repairs are not for the faint of heart, and probably beyond most peoples' abilities. At times I thought it was beyond mine. Further, it's a fine line between successfully repairing the car and ruining it, so installing one panel crooked could make the car junk. 

And, there's always the question as to whether the car should be rebuilt at all. Will it really be worth it?

Ignoring my own advice, I went ahead with the project. My objective was to build the car to a standard where a future owner could be confident there is no covered-up damage or shortcuts taken. I wasn't able to match every nuance of how the car was originally constructed since significant parts of it were simply gone, but all my work was with metal and welding, not chicken wire and inch thick bondo.

Here's several "before" photos:

As you can see, the car was rough. But it was cheap. So cheap my wife thought I should buy it.

I intended to quickly flip the car and not keep it, but the rust and the body damage was too intimidating to prospective purchasers. No one wanted it.

So I decided to carefully line out a build agenda with a view to selling it as a car with the major problems solved. I would build it in stages, and at each point I would offer it for sale. My reasoning was that if the car's major problems were solved it would be a great starting point for a person who wanted to build the car. They would get to start where the fun stuff begins.

I don't know its history at all, but it was certainly a real looker when bought new with its black interior, Tyrol blue paint, and 326 v8 with a floor shift. It's an attractive design, a car which anyone would be proud to own back in the late 60s. But, it's a shame that it fell into disrepair. Maybe it was treasured at the beginning, but the faded paint, numerous dents and crashes, and the cruddy carpet means this car reached a point when its owner simply didn't care.

So sad.

So ours is a noble task, to return the car to its former glory and make any future owner proud to own it. We are doing God's work, with Jesus' help.

Inventory

So, what did I start with? A titled body shell, basically. Here's the list:

• A good hood
• A repairable trunk lid
• A repairable drivers door
• An unrepairable passenger door
• An unrepairable driver fender
• A repairable passenger fender
• A good frame
• All the front suspension
• An intact rear axle and suspension
• A repairable radiator core support
• A pair of repairable front inner fenders
• Repairable rear wheel houses
• Good roof, package tray, and rear seat brace structure
• A good upper cowl structure with some rust, and a good firewall
• All the side glass and window risers for both the doors as well as the back seat
• Both door latch mechanisms
• The rear glass
• Inner and outer heater box
• About half of the bright trim
  

Why Do So Many Pastors Have a Flawed Understanding of the Purpose of the Church? - By Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Another "teaching" article from an unnamed author at Disntr. Although in the title he mentions pastors as having a flawed understanding, he never discusses this. He will talk a lot about the way churches are conducted, who they attract, and why churches that are different than his are problematic. But nothing about what pastors don't understand.

It seems he really wants to blast contemporary church services. His purpose is to criticize those churches that aren't traditional. He mistakes his preferences for the biblical model.

The author's view is that the local church is for the saved. He doesn't document this idea, but merely asserts it. Thus churches that are geared toward contemporary expressions have the unfortunate side effect of attracting unsaved people to church, and well, this is out of order.

Thus, evangelism should only happen outside the church, which means that he wants people saved before they come to church, we would guess is so that the unsaved don't sully his somber, reverent church service. But strangely, the author will write this:

True believers may be challenged by biblical truth, but they are never offended by the unadulterated preaching of God’s word.

The Gospel possesses the power to change lives, but it can only do so when preached with clarity and conviction. 

So he wants the Gospel preached inside church to the saved, but evangelism, (which is the preaching of the Gospel) to be outside the church. We wish he would get his story straight.

But the idea of church being for the saved is not found in the Bible. Instead we read:

1Co. 14:16, 22-25 If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand (idiótés, " ...an amateur, an unprofessional man, a layman; an ungifted person.") say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying...? 

22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers (apistos, 

unbelieving, incredulous, unchristian); prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. (apistos) 23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand (idiótés) or some unbelievers (apistos) come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?

24 But if an unbeliever (apistos) or someone who does not understand 

(idiótés) comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, 25 and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

So Paul clearly expected non-believers to be in the church services, with tongues and prophecy going on. The author's delineation that evangelism should be outside the local church is therefore incorrect.

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

Letter to the editor: Dismantle the Electoral College to restore democracy - by William Stewart

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We hardly know where to start. Contained in this short letter is nearly every leftist talking point, bumper sticker slogan, and fake factoid from the Leftist Agitprop Manual.

Even in the face of clear video evidence, the author persists in spouting the fake insurrection narrative. Despite being thoroughly debunked, the issues of Ukraine, obstruction, etc, get trotted out yet again. This is what Leftists do. Their daily task is to keep to The Narrative (the talking points dispatched from Central Command every day). The purpose is to keep the minions ramped up with outrage so as to facilitate The Agenda (the dismantling of the system).

But unlike the leftists of old, today's leftists don’t have the taste for bloody revolution. Instead, they hope to convince The People to vote away their freedoms incrementally. That's why the Electoral College is under attack. The Electoral College was installed by the Founders to decentralized power, to prevent the disenfranchisement of the minority, and to avoid democracy. They wanted to ensure The People would not be subjected to tyrannical government.

But apparently we need to eliminate the Electoral College in order to restore democracy. What? The Electoral College is in the Constitution, the document that created America. One cannot restore what has never existed. America has never been a democracy.

If we had a direct democratic vote, the presidency would be decided by just a few big cities, which tend to be Left. Their votes would determine the election, while most of the country wouldn't even need to bother to vote.

So the author desires to self-disenfranchise. He wants the vote of millions of people to not count. He wants voter suppression to become the law of the land, ensuring a leftist government for the foreseeable future.

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