A cornucopia of spiritual delights awaits you on today's edition of MZTV. Three topics here for the price of one—at no extra charge.

Charlie Kirk was a good man who promoted the fake Jesus. He was a mainstream Christian espousing the standard-issue Christian lies: Eternal Torment; Human Free Will; the Trinity; the Substitutionary Death of Christ. The true Jesus disavows all these things; the fake Jesus stands by every one of them, throwing them to adoring Christians like chocolate eggs at an Easter parade.

One may ask: What enabled Charlie Kirk to be a good man? The law of Moses motivated him. The Ten Commandments motivated him. Charlie Kirk was a good person because he exercised the willpower and the commitment to follow the law. Like any good Christian, he called it "the grace of God." But like any good Christian, this was an application of whitewash, a concession catering to some of the "wilder" declarations of Paul that humans are helpless without Christ. But Charlie "knew better." In the struggle between law and grace, Charlie talked grace, but lived law. He was going to heaven while others were going to hell because, well, he was better than them. (He would never say that part out loud, and to my knowledge never did. But one need not say it to believe it.)

In a somewhat unrelated topic, a commenter on yesterday's show wondered how I could rail against the political Left and, at the same time, disavow human free will. So unrelated are these topics, it's like asking, "How can you not like to eat roaches while claiming at the same time that God made roaches?" Apparently, one who embraces the Scriptural truth that "all is of God" (2 Corinthians 5:18) must bathe in mud (because God made the mud) and love it, or else disavow God as the Creator of the mud. I don't get it—but then neither does the commenter, who calls me (and all of us) "illogical."

WHO is illogical? The cure for the commenter's misdiagnosis is to type my name into a YouTube search box with the words, "absolute vs. relative perspective." Take five doses and call me in the morning. If you are pregnant or nursing a baby, take three doses with food. WARNING: At higher doses, extreme relief may occur.  

We complete our trifecta today with an explanation of why the teaching of the Substitutionary Death of Christ is mistaken. Another commenter heard me say on yesterday's show that Charlie Kirk believed the Substitutionary Death of Christ (the teaching that Christ died in our place) to be the gospel itself, and took great offense. He said (rather rudely I might add): "How about some evidence?" As it was not my intention yesterday to exhaustively expose where this teaching goes amiss, I explained it cursorily. This enraged the commenter. That's okay; I get enraged myself sometimes. So today I detail it, including polishing all interior surfaces.

For now, just know this: to teach that Christ died INSTEAD of us is to suggest that we could have died (or been punished) for our own sin—one by one, God lining us all up to be crucified—but because this would be inefficient (not to mention time-consuming), Christ stepped in and took the punishment instead of us. This theory puts Christ and humanity on the same level in that it merely swaps out us for Christ, suggesting that Jesus Christ and Joe Sinner are interchangeable.

"Interchangeable!" This is the word I was looking for during the show but couldn't find.

Better late than never.