Bad worship songs: Spirit break out - Bryant, Hellebronth, Dhillion, Hughes (Bethel)

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song, Spirit Break Out.

The Mailbag: Potpourri (…Jesus died for YOU?) - by Michelle Lesley

Found here.

Ms. Lesley grapples with a problem created by her Calvinistic doctrine. She believes in "Limited Atonement," which is the idea that Jesus' sacrificial death is applicable only for those who are predestined to be saved. So, Calvinists believe Jesus died only for the Elect.

This means that Ms. Lesley thinks she cannot tell a non-believer that Jesus died for them because she doesn't know it that person is one of the Elect. However, if one is not a Calvinist then it's not a problem at all to tell someone "Jesus died for you." 

This is one of the many issues we have with Calvinism, that it creates problems that need to be worked around. When confronted with Bible verses that contradict their doctrines, Calvinists must invent explanations. However, we choose to read the Bible for its plain meaning:

Ro. 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 

(Plain meaning: He didn't die just for the elect, He died for the ungodly. )

2Co. 5:14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all...

(Plain meaning: Jesus died for all, not just the elect.)

Jn. 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 

(Plain meaning: He took away the sin of the world, not just the sin of the elect.) 

Ro. 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 

(Plain meaning: His one act of righteousness brings life for all men, not just for the elect.) 

Ro. 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

(Plain meaning: God's intent is to have mercy on all men.) 

1Ti. 2:3-6 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men — the testimony given in its proper time.

(Plain meaning: He is given as a ransom for all men, not just for the elect.) 

1Ti. 4:9-10 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10 (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

(Plain meaning: He is the savior of all men, especially those who believe.)

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

Crushed For Our Iniquities - by Justin Huffman

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author explains the Calvinist/Reformed belief that the Father punished Jesus for our sins. We reject this repulsive and pernicious doctrine. We will explain below.
-----------------

Distorted Doctrine Destroys Lives - by John Piper

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have commented on Dr. Piper's teachings several times on our blog. We haven't been impressed, unfortunately.

Today Dr. Piper provides us with a moving target. He uses the terms doctrine, theology, beliefs, reality, truth, and knowledge of God as if they were synonymous. This makes it difficult to ascertain his point, and in fact he never really tells us what the title promises. Certainly a poor or mistaken belief about God is a bad thing, but we want to know how distorted doctrine destroys lives.

If we were to speculate we would discern that Dr. Piper intends to tell us that having the right set of doctrines is more important than anything else. In fact, he implies that one cannot love God without complete doctrinal purity.

Therefore, it seems the intellectual process is the only avenue by which one can come to God. This might make the reader wonder, what about the intellectually disabled, those with Down's Syndrome, autism, or other afflictions that impair cognitive function? Are these people unable to love God? What about those folks who aren't intellectually based in their cognitive make-up? We all know people who are more "feelers" than thinkers.

It seems narrow to suggest that one cannot know, love, or please God without the proper intellectual framework.

Happily, he does quote several Scriptures. This is somewhat a departure from his usual practice. 

Letter to the editor: Dissent was once part of our DNA; now we see automatic consent - by Douglas Mawhinney

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Apparently the letter writer doesn't understand that dissent is only permitted for the Left. Conservatives are shouted down, deplatformed, shadow banned, and boycotted. Here's the Left's position on dissent:

The letter writer bemoans the loss of the 60s protest culture, viewing the past through rose-colored glasses. Such a wonderful time it was. Just, moral, and noble they were. Opposing "the Man," uplifting the downtrodden, free love and free money for all.

Apparently the letter writer doesn't realize that all that supposed "distrust of big government" eventually led to those same people populating the halls of congress, school boards, and the judiciary. 

When the dissenters and protestor got power they became "the Man." They now are the oppressors, the silencers, the policers of conformity.  They are the persecutors, the intolerant ones, they are the ones who silence people who express their dissent. It is the intolerant Left that has wielded the power of government against their adversaries. 

The Left prosecutes grandmothers for silently praying outside of abortion clinics. 

The Left accuses parents of being terrorists for speaking up in school board meetings. 

The Left runs people out of their jobs for violating leftist orthodoxy. 

The Left accuses conservatives of being book banners for opposing pornography in schools.

The Left forces cake decorators to endorse speech they disagree with.

The Left tells you want you cannot say, think, and do. 

The Left, not Trump. 

Burning buildings and taking over entire city blocks is noble and desirable, but a mostly peaceful protest in Washington DC is treason and insurrection. 

Dismantling government power structures is Gestapo tactics, but forcing people to do things they don't want to do is not authoritarian. 

When Trump defunds entire government departments and cuts bloated bureaucracy, that makes him a fascist, but when leftist California governor Newsome bans gas powered vehicles and wants California to be totally net zero, that's a permissible exercise of government power.

When encountering dissent, Trump actually has a rejoinder and doesn't just roll over like previous Republican presidents. The Left doesn't like it when someone disagrees with them, and especially when Trump disagrees with them.

So Trump tells these publicly funded colleges that they are no longer allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. The letter writer wants these colleges to "dissent," i.e., continue favoring certain races over others in its admission and grading practices. This apparently is tyranny.

In actual fact, with Trump as president the leftist oppressors are being negated. The entrenched power structures are being overturned. They are losing their power to control your lives

Leftists stand for, embrace, and implement, oppession, persecution, hate, and division, all the while accusing their political opposition of doing the very thing they're actually doing. 

So the letter writer is completely unaware of his own irony. He really believes the leftist agitprop coming out of the mouths of the talking heads on TV. He thinks that he's being told the truth by the very people who want to take away his freedom, take his money, and force him into government programs and government facilities.

Such is the sad legacy of the 60s anti-war, anti-government, anti-tyrant movement. They are laughable caricatures of themselves. 

They became what they protested.

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

What Does a Pastor Do? - by Joel Smit

Found here.

This author repeats the talking points of the traditional church view, that the pastor is the presiding head of the local church. This is not found in the Bible.

Paul used used the term "pastor" [poimén] only once, in Ephesians 4:11. Besides this verse and the references to the literal shepherds who witnessed the company of angels [Luke 2:8], the term is never used in the NT regarding a man. 

Another related word, poimainó, is used in 1 Peter 5:2, among other places: 

1Pe. 5:2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers...

Peter wrote these words to the elders. The elders are supposed to be the shepherds and overseers, not a pastor. There is nothing in the NT that indicates anyone was named to be a pastor, or that pastors lead churches, or what their duties are. 

In addition, though the author quotes several Bible verses, he either misrepresents them or the verses he cites do not bolster his case. In fact, he lies to us.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.)

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

What Is TULIP? - by Robert Rothwell

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have previously commented on this author's articles here and here. We are not surprised, therefore, that he does not quote Scripture today, because he didn't before. Well, in fairness, we must concede he quote a snippet of a verse, but it does not document any of the points he makes.

Over 1600 words, nine of which are Scripture. Really, how can a "Bible" teacher teach the Bible without quoting it? It continually mystifies us.

The biggest problem Calvinists have is their need to create complicated explanations in order to harmonize Scripture with their doctrines. Invariably this means to take verses out of context and insert themselves into them. 

This is what happens when doctrines are used to interpret Scripture.

But ultimately, our issue is the irrelevance of these doctrines. TULIP does not change any aspect of Christian living. These doctrines do not change any privilege or obligation we have. None of them speak to generosity, worship, obedience, holiness, or fellowship. A lost person still needs repentance and salvation, regardless of the truth of Calvinism.

As such, these doctrines are diversions, intellectual exercises that have no practical purpose. Aside from their repugnance, these doctrines are irrelevant.

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

The Mailbag: Is it biblical for women to carry out The Great Commission? - by Michelle Lesley

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

It hasn't been that long since Ms. Lesley last appeared in our blog. As is typical, she seems unusually preoccupied with parsing, subdividing, and micro-analyzing 1 Timothy 2:12. However, in the below excerpt she doesn't quote it. In fact, she doesn't quote any Scriptures at all. 

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

We shall quote it: 

1Ti. 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

From these nineteen words Ms. Lesley has in the past provided excruciating analyses about what a woman can or cannot do: Read the announcements in church, sing in the choir, teach Sunday school, give pro-life talks in church, administer communion, be a deacon (ess), teach the children's sermon during the service, and, teach the Bible in a nursing home. All this based on a single misinterpreted verse.

So, continuing in this vein she now wants to explain if women can evangelize or baptize. As mentioned, her explanation will not explain any Scripture. In fact, she will provide no evidence or documentation at all, nothing but bare assertions.

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

Hebrews 2:3-4 and the Sign Gifts - by Bible.org

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This article goes way over our heads in its discussion of Greek grammar. We could barely follow. However, the presentation has a fatal flaw. It's not the author's analysis of the Greek, but rather the assumptions upon which that analysis is based.

In a departure from our usual practice, we will begin by only pointing out the assumptions the author makes. Because it doesn't matter how sound the exegesis of the Greek is if the assumptions are wrong. Towards the end we will provide some commentary as the author begins to draw his conclusions.

We will find that the author completely drops the ball. He's filtering Scripture through is doctrine, and it colors his presentation.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

What is "born again?" - rethink

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 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 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 we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

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

Five Years (Pastors making changes in their churches) - By J.V. Fesko

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

Dr. Fesko has quite a resume:

Dr. Fesko is a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Harriett Barbour Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi. He initially served as a church planter from 1998 until 2004 when the church particularized and called him as their pastor. He served as pastor of Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian Church from 2004 until 2009 when he was called to serve as Academic Dean and Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California until June of 2019. Dr. Fesko's research interests include the integration of biblical and systematic theology, soteriology, and early modern Reformed theology. Dr. Fesko’s publications include, Reforming Apologetics, Romans: Lectio Continua, The Spirit of the Age, Death in Adam, Life in Christ, The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption, The Covenant of Redemption, The Theology of the Westminster Standards, Songs of a Suffering King, and Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology, among many others. His scholarly essays have appeared in various books and journals including Perichoresis, Reformed Theological Review, Journal of Reformed Theology, Church History and Religious Culture, Calvin Theological Journal, Trinity Journal, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, and the Westminster Theological Journal.

As a scholar and a highly-educated pastor and theologian, Dr. Fesko is expected to provide us with an unparalleled and insightful biblical commentary. But there isn't a single mention of the Bible, let alone a quote from it. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

Dr. Fesko wants to advise new pastors to wait before making changes in their new churches. That's it. That's the whole of his article. While we would concede that the advice is sensible, what we don't understand is why he thinks a pastor ought to be in a position to impose his will on a church at all. The biblical role of a pastor is to care for the flock. There is no mention of a pastor being in charge of the local church. 

A church is governed by elders:

 

1Pe. 5:1-2 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers...

Seminaries are selling their students a falsity, and thus are preparing them for operating in deception. Dr. Fesko is participating in this when he should be advising churches to embrace the biblical model of church leadership.

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

Social Security can benefit future generations – if Congress acts Margie McDonald, Guest columnist

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has nothing new to say. She repeats, almost verbatim, the inane talking points the Left has been using for decades. Here's one recent example.

Inevitably, the Social Security system is proclaimed solvent, followed by recommending crucial fixes. So it isn't solvent. Then, the solution always offered is to increase taxes, always on the rich. Reforms like clamping down on fraud or increasing efficiencies are always rejected.

So the author isn't really advocating for saving Social Security, her intent is to bolster leftist positions and attack and denigrate Republicans. 

She is all-in on The Agenda, and parrots The Narrative. The Agenda is the disassembly of The System, which is the American culture and way of life. The Narrative is the daily talking points disseminated by "Central Command," serving the implementation of The Agenda, and dutifully repeated by the media and talking heads.

Almost everything written here is false, misleading, or mistaken. But that doesn't matter, because accuracy or truth is not relevant. Only The Agenda is relevant.

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

Why did you use the word "Imputed?" An analysis of imputed righteousness

Introduction 

I asked a friend to explain his use of the word "imputed," and he sent me this detailed analysis (source unknown.) So the purpose of today's blog post is to examine the concepts presented in this analysis. It's somewhat long post, so we hope the reader will persevere to the end.

My initial, perhaps visceral response was a wholesale rejection of the doctrine of imputation, because it is rooted in Calvinism/Reformed theology. This blog has analyzed various Calvinistic/Reformed doctrines quite frequently, and we have found the biblical basis for them to be astonishingly weak.

Let's first provide the dictionary definition of imputation:

impute - verb

1. To ascribe (a misdeed or an error, for example) to:

affix, assign, blame, fasten, fix, pin on, place.

2. To regard as belonging to or resulting from another:

accredit, ascribe, assign, attribute, charge, credit, lay, refer

This means imputation is a quality or attribute affixed or assigned to something that doesn't actually belong to it. So from God's viewpoint, He supposedly affixes or assigns Christ's righteousness to the believer, because the believer is not actually righteous. This is often expressed something like, "when the Father looks at you He sees Jesus."

Thus the Christian is only regarded as righteous. God essentially pretends we are righteous. It seems we barely even saved, because we're still evil and are still in our sins. We have only been "imputed" with righteousness.

The biblical basis of imputation originates here:

Ge. 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (ASV)

The Hebrew word for "counted" is chashab, to think, account. That is, something was added to Abraham that God took into account. God thought of Abraham differently. This suggests righteousness was something Abraham actually possessed, that is, God considered him righteous because of his faith. His faith gained him something, righteousness.

The same word, chashab, is used in these verses:

Ps. 44:22 Yet for your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.

Ps. 88:4 I am counted among those who go down to the pit; I am like a man without strength.

Ps. 144:3 LORD, what is man that you care for him, the son of man that you think of him?

Is. 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

None of these verse make sense if the word "imputed" is substituted. Our preliminary conclusion is that imputation rests on a shaky foundation. 

Paul quoted Genesis 15:6 in his letter to the Roman church, and chapter four of this letter is where he explained how righteousness is obtained. As it happens, Romans 4 is also the focus of the below explanation of imputation my friend sent me. Therefore, because my friend is a careful and analytical thinker, I resolved to provide him a systematic, detailed (and I hope biblical) analysis. 

I will insert my rejoinders in bold within the text of my friend's response.

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

Contemporary Challenges to Christian Soteriology - Keith Mathison

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author makes a superficial attempt to explain his topic, but requires his readers to possess an understanding of terminology not commonly known. Thus it is a basic explanation which requires advanced knowledge. We simply don't understand what profit there is to require the reader to know so much to understand an explanation about elementary things, but this seems to be the author's preferred approach.

Most obvious, the title. The author presumes his audience knows what soteriology is, and everything he writes is premised on this. For the benefit of the reader, we will define the word. Soteriology is the study of the various doctrines relating to salvation. 

The author approaches this from the Calvinist viewpoint. Calvinism is the collection of doctrines taught by John Calvin 500 years ago, most particularly the idea that God has already chosen everyone who will be saved (predestination).

This knowledge will help the reader to some degree, but as we will note, the author fails to explain a lot of the terminology he uses, as well as the concepts he references. We will insert a double question mark whenever we come across one these instances. There will be a lot of them.

In addition, the author doesn't quote a word of Scripture. Not one. How does someone teach the Bible without quoting it?

We must deem this Bad Bible teaching.

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

Since Satan Knows the Ultimate Outcome of God’s Plan, Why Does He Continue Opposing God? - Randy Alcorn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is an incredibly well-documented presentation, filled with Scripture and light on personal commentary. Truly a Bible teacher after our own heart.

The author makes a series of observations and backs each with one or more pertinent Scriptures. We followed along with pleasure as the author presented this explanation, murmuring amens under our breath.

Until the end. The very last paragraph. It starkly contrasts with the bulk of the article. Let's quote:

If Satan was free to decide not to do what the Bible reveals he will do, then Satan would be more powerful than God. God would be proven not to be Sovereign. Additionally, God tells us He is Truth (“I am the way, the truth, and the life,” John 14:6) and His Word is Truth (John 17:17); if, in fact, Satan could decide that he will not act as prophesied in Revelation, then the Word would be false. If the Word is false, and it is the source that reveals both God and Satan, then nothing could be believed about either.

This is the author's only undocumented assertion in the entire article. He tells us that Satan does exactly what God purposed him to do, he has no choice. This idea has profound ramifications regarding the Problem Of Evil and the issue of free-will versus Calvinistic predestination. But the author doesn't discuss this. 

And in fact the rest of his presentation is irrelevant, because all that matters is that Satan is doing only what God has decreed. But he also writes, 

Satan’s entire delusion is that he is “like God.” This is the reason he fell and introduced sin into the creation. 

This would mean that God's purpose for creating Satan was so that he would rebel and bring about sin. Therefore, God created sin. It's inescapable. God dictated everything, including Satan's fall, therefore God is the cause of all the misery and perversion in the world.

If the author has an explanation for this, we would love to see it.

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

Why We Urgently Need a Progressive Policy Infrastructure - By Rob Kall

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This author seems to believe that the 80-plus years of Leftist political domination didn't happen, that the wrecking ball of leftist policies is non-existent, and that the installation of Leftist politics at every level of government isn't actually there. The leftist control of the news media, Hollywood, public education, and corporations is near total, but not according to the author.

He thinks that the Left lacks the infrastructure to compete with the Right.

Astonishing.

The unstated truth is, the Left thought it had a lock on the power structure, but the walls of the Leftist citadel have been cracking. Conservative ideas have been seeping in, and there became more and more avenues to obtain a right-leaning perspective. Regular America has always been in varying degrees politically Right, despite American institutions tracking Leftward. 

Within the last 40 or so years prominent conservative voices began arising, like Rush Limbaugh, who articulated the things mainstream America knew in their bones to be true but never heard from the media voices. When leftist agitprop is all people see and hear, the conservative message is like a breath of fresh air.

The Leftist citadel had never been challenged before, so they didn't know what to do. But being authoritarians, dissent cannot be permitted. So rather than develop rhetorical skills or logical arguments, they simply turned to personal attacks, deplatforming, and censorship, strategies which continue to be utilized with impunity by the Left even today.

So the author wants a leftist infrastructure built to compete with the Right. He appears to have forgotten that the Left has made many abortive attempts to compete with the conservative media. Air America, Thom Hartmann, Mike Malloy, Randi Rhoads, Al Franken... None of them has gained any traction in terms of popular appeal. 

No one wants to listen to the Leftist message. 

True to form, Leftists attribute their failures to packaging, presentation, or any other reason besides the message itself. They don't understand (or refuse to admit) that their message, unless camouflaged in euphemisms and feel-good language, is just not popular. People don't like the Leftist worldview. Period.

We hope the author gets his wish, and we will witness the inevitable demise of this latest leftist enterprise, accompanied with the excuse-making as to why it failed that will inevitably follow.

It should be entertaining.

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

Soul ties? - Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Lesley is asked a question about soul ties and completely drops the ball in her answer. And she doesn't quote a single Bible verse. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Gallatin County Health Department - Happy pride month

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a very odd Faceborg post from our county health department. It's really nothing more than pandering, a simpering show of support, with tobacco usage being used as the excuse.

Apparently gays are at higher risk because they smoke more. Do they smoke more? Well, yes. But Gallatin County wants to place blame, and the blame is 100% on external factors. Discrimination, stress, targeted advertising. Why? We don't know, except for the County's clear desire to virtue signal.

As much as they want to blame society and intolerant straights, discrimination is simply a questionable reason for higher tobacco use:

...if tobacco use is conceptualized as a coping behavior resulting from psychological distress associated with social rejection and stigmatization—as is the case in the Minority Stress Model26—then what accounts for the greater disparities in use among sexual minority women compared to sexual minority men?

Indeed, Since lesbians have a higher rate of tobacco use, are they subject to more discrimination than gay men? Of course not, blaming discrimination is nonsense. 

14% of people age 18 and above use tobacco products in Gallatin County. There are 126,000 people in the county, which equals 18,000 tobacco users. We will generously grant that 5% of Gallatin County residents are gay, which is 882 people. We will round that off to 1000 because we are so charitable. 

That is 0.8% of the population. This is what we mean by pandering. 

And because of this supposed stress, Gallatin County believes it's harder for gays to quit than it is for straights. They face "unique challenges." However, there is no evidence that quitting very addictive tobacco products is harder for one category of people than it is for another. Again, Gallatin County is simply trying to ingratiate themselves.

How are gays not offended by this?

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

Understanding the Old Testament sacrifices - By Simon van Bruchem

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has written about this before, and commits the same errors:

• Jesus did not "pay for the depth of our sins," He paid for us:

  1Co. 7:23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

• Jesus is not "the substitute for all who believe." Jesus didn't substitute for us, His blood washed our sins away. His sacrificial death was propitiation, that is, the turning away or satisfaction of wrath: 

  Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

  There was no need for Jesus to be punished in substitution for us if His blood is sufficient.

Lastly, we note that there is not a single Bible verse and only one tangential Bible reference in this article. How can a supposed Bible teacher explain the Bible without using it?

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Trump isn't the fascist here - by Paul Kienitz

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This author warns us of all the fascists. He identifies fascists by name. He traces fascism back decades. George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Reagan, Nixon, Hoover, Harding. 

Fascists. 

All of them. In fact, the Republican party is all fascists. Has been for decades. Fascists here, fascists there, fascists everywhere. So many fascists.

Fascists.

They're all fascists. We are all fascists. Except Democrats. Wag your finger, Democrats. Clutch your pearls. Burn some Teslas, throw some rocks, turn over some cop cars, loot some businesses. Because of the fascists. 

Fascists.

Your neighbor is a fascist. Your pastor. Your grocer. Straight white male? Fascist. But not Trump. Trump is not a fascist, he's a narcissist. Even he's an authoritarian, a tyrant, and a dictator, he's not a fascist. No, really. Trump is not a fascist. At least there's one person who's not a fascist.

That's a relief.

He's not a fascist, but we all are. Fascists. All of us. Half the country is fascist. 

Fascists.