Daily Archives: June 24, 2018

June 24: It’s Simple

Nehemiah 7:66–8:18; 1 John 5:6–12; Psalm 110:1–7

I tend to complicate matters. Determined to understand the nuances of a problem, I spend more time constructing a solution than I need to. Often, delaying a simple solution is my way of avoiding action that requires me to be courageous, intentional, or perhaps admit I’m wrong.

John’s first letter addresses a complication of the gospel message. False teachers were causing division in the community by spreading incorrect doctrines about Christ’s humanity and divinity. Without understanding that Christ is both man and God, some people in the community were in danger of diminishing Christ’s saving work and confusing the gospel. John spends the greater portion of the letter guiding his readers through the murky doctrines the false teachers had introduced.

However, John’s climactic point at the close of his letter is far from complex. First John 5:11–12 contains a statement about belief that is both simple and decisive: “And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. The one who has the Son has the life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.” As John leads the doubting recipients of his letter back to the truth, he shows them the simplicity of the solution: Through the Son, God has provided a way out of sin. This simple truth requires a simple response: belief in the Son.

Where in your life do you complicate an obedient response to God?

Rebecca Van Noord[1]

[1] Barry, J. D., & Kruyswijk, R. (2012). Connect the Testaments: A One-Year Daily Devotional with Bible Reading Plan. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

June 24 Transgressing the Royal Law

“If you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not commit murder.’ Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law” (James 2:9–11).


You sin when you fall short of God’s holy standard or go beyond the limits of His law.

Many people attempt to justify their sinfulness by categorizing sins according to their apparent severity. For example, telling a “little white lie” isn’t as serious to them as committing perjury; cheating on their income tax isn’t as serious as robbing a bank. Others see God’s law as a series of detached injunctions and assume they can gain credit with God by keeping one law even if they break the others. In the final analysis, if the laws they don’t break outweigh the laws they do, they think everything will be OK.

Apparently some of those to whom James wrote had the same misconceptions, believing sins like prejudice, partiality, and indifference to the poor weren’t as serious as sins like murder and adultery. Or perhaps they believed they could make up for their favoritism by keeping God’s law in other areas.

Both of those views are erroneous and potentially damning because God’s law isn’t a series of detached injunctions or a way of gaining credit with God. It’s a unified representation of His holy nature. Even though all sins aren’t equally heinous or damaging, from God’s perspective every sin violates His standard. When you break one law, you break them all and are characterized as a sinner and transgressor.

“Sin” in verse 9 speaks of missing the mark and falling short of God’s holy standard. “Transgressors” refers to going beyond the accepted limits. One says you’ve fallen short; the other says you’ve gone too far. Both are equal violations of God’s holiness. You must see all sin as an affront to Him and must never compound your sin by attempting to hide it, justify it, or counterbalance it with good works.


Suggestions for Prayer:  Memorize 1 John 1:9, and always confess your sin whenever you violate God’s holy law. ✧ Praise God for pitying our plight as sinners and for providing a Savior.

For Further Study: Read Galatians 3:10–29, noting the purpose of God’s law.[1]

[1] MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1993). Drawing Near—Daily Readings for a Deeper Faith (p. 188). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Fake News Backfires on Dems – Obama-Era Photos of Illegal Alien Children in Cages Deter Immigrants From Illegally Crossing Into US — The Gateway Pundit

Obama caged illegal immigrant children.

The Democrats and their liberal media have been ranting nonstop since photos first surfaced several weeks ago of illegal immigrant children in cages.

The photos in a “First Look” article by AZ Central were first published back in 2014 when Obama was president.

This was a regular practice during the Bush and Obama years.
But Democrats and their liberal media are hoping to make this the issue of the year.

Fake News TIME Mag took it to the next level and exploited a little Honduran girl who was photographed crying after her mother kidnapped her and dragged her across the US border illegally.

The photo of the ‘crying girl’ spread like wildfire on social media.

TIME lied and said the little girl was separated from her mother by border patrol agents. She was never separated from her mother. All lies.

It’s all lies. It’s all fake.

The fake news backfired on the Dems because the Obama-era photos of illegal alien children in cages circulating social media are deterring immigrants from crossing into the US illegally.

Immigrants in Tijuana, Mexico are having second thoughts about illegally crossing into the US. “I don’t want to lose my kids.”

“If it comes to a choice where I have to choose between my kids and crossing, I’ll keep my kids,” said a woman at the Tijuana-California border.


via Fake News Backfires on Dems – Obama-Era Photos of Illegal Alien Children in Cages Deter Immigrants From Illegally Crossing Into US — The Gateway Pundit

WATCH: Obama’s DHS chief admits they detained children, ‘we believed it was necessary’

Jeh Johnson, secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration, threw a wrench in the progressive narrative on Sunday, which contends that detainment of families, and the possible separation of children from their parents, is wholly unnecessary.

Instead, Johnson freely admitted the Obama administration did exactly what the Trump administration is being criticized for — and they “believed it was necessary.”

What did Johnson say?

During an interview with Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday,” Johnson admitted they expanded immigrant detention in the Obama administration.

“Without a doubt the images, and the reality, from 2014, just like 2018, are not pretty,” Johnson said.

“We expanded it, I freely admit it was controversial, we believed it was necessary at the time, I still believe it is necessary to remain a certain capability for families,” Johnson explained. “We can’t have catch-and-release.”

Catch-and-release was a controversy policy from the Obama-era where immigrants who traveled to the U.S. for asylum would be released until their cases could be processed.

Johnson also boasted that the Obama administration “deported or repatriated” more than 1 million illegal immigrants. Indeed, in 2015, the American Civil Liberties Union blasted the Obama administration for its immigration policies.

Source: WATCH: Obama’s DHS chief admits they detained children, ‘we believed it was necessary’

Mayor DeBlasio Visits TX Facility to See ‘Abused’ Illegal Immigrant Children — Ignores 2 in 5 Kids Living in Poverty in NYC — The Gateway Pundit


The Democrat Party continued to rally for open borders and free-roaming illegals on Sunday.

Several top Democrats including New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio, Mayor Eric Garcetti from Los Angeles, and Democrat senators visited the Tornillo facility.

The leftists were expecting to see abused children at the Tornillo facility.

Instead they saw kids playing soccer.

These shameless Democrats pretend to be concerned about these immigrant children but SAID NOTHING when children were being separated from their parents during the Obama years.

While Mayor De Blasio poses for the cameras in Texas — 2 out of 5 children in New York City continue to suffer in poverty.

While Mayor Eric Garcetti mugs for the cameras in Texas — 8.9% of children in Los Angeles live in DEEP poverty.

via Mayor DeBlasio Visits TX Facility to See ‘Abused’ Illegal Immigrant Children — Ignores 2 in 5 Kids Living in Poverty in NYC — The Gateway Pundit

The Power of Music: JESUS CULTURE Knows That Power and Uses It For Evil

Absolute Truth from the Word of God

I remember the first time I listened to music from Jesus Culture. I had no idea who these people were.  I did know that the feeling which overcame me was not uplifting and I felt sure that God was not being glorified.

In a word – it was creepy.

Anointed music has the opposite effect on those who love the Lord Jesus Christ. We know when we hear pleasing music to our God.

Here is a song that I think is so Anointed. Whenever I hear it, I feel so close to the Lord.  And I believe that He receives this as true worship:

From handlingthewordoftruth.org

A Closer Look at a Modern Day Trojan Horse:  Jesus Culture

“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if…

View original post 1,583 more words


But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

1 Corinthians 12:7

In our Christian fellowship, we must recognize that the blessed Holy Spirit of God desires to take men and women and control them, and use them as instruments through which He can express Himself in the Body of Christ.

Someone may try to give me credit for something they think I have done for God—but in actuality, God is doing it through His Holy Spirit—and using me as an instrument. There is no real sense in which we are able to do spiritual work of any kind without the Holy Spirit.

We do know that the Apostle Paul said: “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Romans 8:9). But he also exhorted those early believers not to ignore the Spirit’s gifts and to “covet earnestly the best gifts” (1 Corinthians 12:31). It is still important for us to fulfill the Spirit-given functions and capabilities which are the spiritual birthright of every regenerated believer.

We should not be looking around for some other way. God has given us in His Holy Spirit every gift and power and help that we need to serve Him!

Lord, I pray that I will be a clean vessel, fit for use in Your kingdom work today.[1]

[1] Tozer, A. W. (2015). Mornings with tozer: daily devotional readings. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.

Independent media publisher declares FBI and DOJ “enemy combatants” of America; complete abandonment of the rule of law

(Natural News) An independent media organization says that America currently operates under two systems of justice — one for the elite and one for the rest of us — while the FBI and Justice Department are “enemy combatants” that no longer faithfully follow or enforce the law.

Source: Independent media publisher declares FBI and DOJ “enemy combatants” of America; complete abandonment of the rule of law

FBI Agent Sally Moyer Who Text ‘F*ck Trump’ is Registered Dem – Filtered What Evidence Taken From Hillary’s Devices Could Be Used in Probe — The Gateway Pundit

Earlier this week, Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows unmasked two of the previously unidentified, anti-Trump, pro-Hillary FBI investigators referred for investigation by the Inspector General.

These FBI attorneys do not work in “counterintelligence” as the FBI previously claimed as an excuse to withhold their names from the public.

The unnamed FBI officials “Agent 1” and “Agent 5” were involved in the FBI Clinton investigation and were also engaged in a romantic relationship just like fellow FBI lovebirds Strzok and Page.

According to Daily Mail at the time of the texts, Moyer was on the ‘filter team’ for the Clinton probe – a small team of government officials that determines whether information obtained by the FBI is considered ‘privileged’ or if it can be used in the investigation.

And she’s a registered Democrat…

No bias at the FBI though…nothing to see here.

Sperry reported: BREAKING: Sally Moyer, aka “Agent 5,” is a registered Democrat. She rooted for Hillary to win & IM’d “f*ck Trump” when she didn’t. As FBI’s Nat’l Security Law Branch chief, Moyer told agents investigating Hillary which evidence from her devices they could use & which they couldnt

The same FBI officials in charge of Hillary’s sham email investigation migrated to the Trump-Russia probe and even to Mueller’s witch hunt.

Mueller’s team of hack lawyers is a who’s who of corrupt and conflicted Obama and Hillary cronies.

There was not one anti-Hillary text message from FBI agents and lawyers in Horowitz’s report.

But there was no bias in the FBI when it came to Hillary’s sham investigation, says Horowitz.

via FBI Agent Sally Moyer Who Text ‘F*ck Trump’ is Registered Dem – Filtered What Evidence Taken From Hillary’s Devices Could Be Used in Probe — The Gateway Pundit

Time magazine’s fake cover sparks slew of imitators

WASHINGTON – While CNN did a story hailing the latest Time magazine cover as “powerful” for spreading the myth blaming President Trump for separating children from parents at the border, Twitter users have been producing their own alternate covers by the score.

“It’s a telling image,” the CNN report said. “It shows the compassion gap that exists between the Trump administration’s ‘zero-tolerance’ border policy and the real-life people that are affected.”

The cover image on the original shows Trump towering over a little girls crying juxtaposed with these words: “Welcome to America.”

Alternate covers produced by Twitter users included an image with Hillary Clinton crying with these words: “Life is hard.”

Another cover used these words: “To fix the broken immigration problem that Obama left behind.”

“Everything the media did NOT tell you about this photo,” read another. Mother and daughter were never separated at any point. Mother kidnapped daughter from father. Mother was deported in 2013. They were not escaping violence. Allegedly paid smuggler to cross border.”


Other included these captions:

  • “My mommy took me from my daddy. I miss him so much. Now the media is lying about me and posting my picture everywhere. They’re using me for ratings.” Trump responds, “I’m sorry sweetheart but that’s what the media does. I know it all too well.”
  • Nancy Pelosi exclaiming “welcome to America” above a band of MS-13 gangsters.
  • •Trump towering over Hillary, Obama, Chuck Schumer and other Democrats saying: “Welcome to reality.”
  • Another with the words “More lies” over Time’s logo with this explanation below: “The child was never separated from her mother. Mother left her three other children and husband in Honduras, taking the child against his wishes. Mother wanted to live the American Dream. He has a good job in Honduras …”





Meanwhile, the CNN report concludes: “What we do know: Trump isn’t changing. You don’t just suddenly develop an empathy gene. And the Time cover is a stark reminder of how much empathy matters in a president.”

Source: Time magazine’s fake cover sparks slew of imitators

Maxine Waters calls for harassment, intimidation of Trump cabinet. Don’t let them in restaurants, gas stations, stores etc…

Jot down the date and time, ladies and gentlemen, because as of this weekend California Rep. Maxine Waters is officially a fascist — a liberal fascist, to be more precise. One who believes in using harassment and intimidation to manipulate people into acting as she desires.

Case in point: While speaking on MSNBC this Saturday about the recent harassment of Trump administration officials, this proud liberal fascist urged the network’s audience to continue harassing Trump administration officials until they step down from their posts.

“I have no sympathy for these people that are in this administration who know it’s wrong for what they’re doing on so many fronts. They tend to not want to confront this president or even leave, but they know what they’re doing is wrong,” she said.

Because Waters disagrees with President Donald Trump’s otherwise popular policies, his top officials — including White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Homeland Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen — deserve to be harassed, or so her argument went.

“I want to tell you, these members of his cabinet who remain and try to defend him, they won’t be able to go to a restaurant, they won’t be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store,” the proud liberal fascist explained.

“The people are going to turn on them. They’re going to protest. They’re absolutely going to harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the president, ‘No, I can’t hang with you.’ This is wrong. This is unconscionable. We can’t keep doing this to children.’”

Never mind the fact that Trump already reversed the Obama-era rule that had required U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain illegal immigrant children separately from their illegal immigrant parents.

And never mind the fact that the Obama administration not only separated illegal immigrant children from their parents, but also allegedly mistreated them by routinely stripping them naked, strapping them to chairs with bags placed over their heads and residing them with racial slurs.

Never mind all that, because the only thing that appears to matter to Maxine Waters is finding something, anything to quell the Trump Derangement Syndrome raging in her heart and mind.

The irony is that though Waters and her throngs of leftist peers routinely describe the president as a “fascist” and “Nazi,” it’s their own behavior that most closely mirrors that of  actual fascists and Nazis:

Yet the very same types of irate liberals who harassed Homeland Secretary Nielsen last week at a restaurant near Washington, D.C. think they’re the “anti-fascists.”

Source: Maxine Waters calls for harassment, intimidation of Trump cabinet. Don’t let them in restaurants, gas stations, stores etc…

Ron Paul: Here’s 21 Trillion Reasons To Question The Role Of Government In America

The U.S. military budget dwarfs every other country on the planet combined.

Do you know how much the Pentagon spent between 1998 and 2015 that is “unaccounted for”?



Where did it go?

No one knows…it’s “unaccounted for”.

The role of government must SERIOUSLY be reconsidered in America.

Without being technically at war with anyone in particular, the U.S. is dropping a bomb somewhere in the world every 12 minutes, around the clock.

The U.S. has 1,000 military bases scattered across the planet.

Congress, not only doesn’t declare war, as they’re required to by the U.S. Constitution, but they’re surprised to find out that American troops are peppered throughout Africa too.

The role of government must SERIOUSLY be reconsidered in America.

Peace … Non-intervention in the affairs of foreign nations … Free Trade … Travel.

These principles have long been gone.

It’s time to revive them.

*  *  *

Just in case you were unclear on the details of the missing $21 trillion… here is Lee Camp, via TruthDig.com

Twenty-one trillion dollars.

The Pentagon’s own numbers show that it can’t account for $21 trillion. Yes, I mean trillion with a “T.” And this could change everything.

But I’ll get back to that in a moment.

There are certain things the human mind is not meant to do. Our complex brains cannot view the world in infrared, cannot spell words backward during orgasm and cannot really grasp numbers over a few thousand. A few thousand, we can feel and conceptualize. We’ve all been in stadiums with several thousand people. We have an idea of what that looks like (and how sticky the floor gets).

But when we get into the millions, we lose it. It becomes a fog of nonsense. Visualizing it feels like trying to hug a memory. We may know what $1 million can buy (and we may want that thing), but you probably don’t know how tall a stack of a million $1 bills is. You probably don’t know how long it takes a minimum-wage employee to make $1 million.

That’s why trying to understand—truly understand—that the Pentagon spent 21 trillion unaccounted-for dollars between 1998 and 2015 washes over us like your mother telling you that your third cousin you met twice is getting divorced. It seems vaguely upsetting, but you forget about it 15 seconds later because … what else is there to do?

Twenty-one trillion.

But let’s get back to the beginning. A couple of years ago, Mark Skidmore, an economics professor, heard Catherine Austin Fitts, former assistant secretary in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, say that the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General had found $6.5 trillion worth of unaccounted-for spending in 2015. Skidmore, being an economics professor, thought something like, “She means $6.5 billion. Not trillion. Because trillion would mean the Pentagon couldn’t account for more money than the gross domestic product of the whole United Kingdom. But still, $6.5 billion of unaccounted-for money is a crazy amount.”

So he went and looked at the inspector general’s report, and he found something interesting: It was trillion! It was fucking $6.5 trillion in 2015 of unaccounted-for spending! And I’m sorry for the cursing, but the word “trillion” is legally obligated to be prefaced with “fucking.” It is indeed way more than the U.K.’s GDP.

Skidmore did a little more digging. As Forbes reported in December 2017, “[He] and Catherine Austin Fitts … conducted a search of government websites and found similar reports dating back to 1998. While the documents are incomplete, original government sources indicate $21 trillion in unsupported adjustments have been reported for the Department of Defense and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the years 1998-2015.”

Let’s stop and take a second to conceive how much $21 trillion is (which you can’t because our brains short-circuit, but we’ll try anyway).

1. The amount of money supposedly in the stock market is $30 trillion.

2. The GDP of the United States is $18.6 trillion.

3. Picture a stack of money. Now imagine that that stack of dollars is all $1,000 bills. Each bill says “$1,000” on it. How high do you imagine that stack of dollars would be if it were $1 trillion. It would be 63 miles high.

4. Imagine you make $40,000 a year. How long would it take you to make $1 trillion? Well, don’t sign up for this task, because it would take you 25 million years (which sounds like a long time, but I hear that the last 10 million really fly by because you already know your way around the office, where the coffee machine is, etc.).

The human brain is not meant to think about a trillion dollars.

And it’s definitely not meant to think about the $21 trillion our Department of Defense can’t account for. These numbers sound bananas. They sound like something Alex Jones found tattooed on his backside by extraterrestrials.

But the 21 trillion number comes from the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General—the OIG. Although, as Forbes pointed out, “after Mark Skidmore began inquiring about OIG-reported unsubstantiated adjustments, the OIG’s webpage, which documented, albeit in a highly incomplete manner, these unsupported “accounting adjustments,” was mysteriously taken down.”

Luckily, people had already grabbed copies of the report, which—for now—you can view here.

Here’s something else important from that Forbes article—which is one of the only mainstream media articles you can find on the largest theft in American history:

Given that the entire Army budget in fiscal year 2015 was $120 billion, unsupported adjustments were 54 times the level of spending authorized by Congress.

That’s right. The expenses with no explanation were 54 times the actual budget allotted by Congress. Well, it’s good to see Congress is doing 1/54th of its job of overseeing military spending (that’s actually more than I thought Congress was doing). This would seem to mean that 98 percent of every dollar spent by the Army in 2015 was unconstitutional.

So, pray tell, what did the OIG say caused all this unaccounted-for spending that makes Jeff Bezos’ net worth look like that of a guy jingling a tin can on the street corner?

“[The July 2016 inspector general] report indicates that unsupported adjustments are the result of the Defense Department’s ‘failure to correct system deficiencies.’ 

They blame trillions of dollars of mysterious spending on a “failure to correct system deficiencies”? That’s like me saying I had sex with 100,000 wild hairless aardvarks because I wasn’t looking where I was walking.

Twenty-one trillion.

Say it slowly to yourself.

At the end of the day, there are no justifiable explanations for this amount of unaccounted-for, unconstitutional spending. Right now, the Pentagon is being audited for the first time ever, and it’s taking 2,400 auditors to do it. I’m not holding my breath that they’ll actually be allowed to get to the bottom of this.

But if the American people truly understood this number, it would change both the country and the world. It means that the dollar is sprinting down a path toward worthless. If the Pentagon is hiding spending that dwarfs the amount of tax dollars coming in to the federal government, then it’s clear the government is printing however much it wants and thinking there are no consequences. Once these trillions are considered, our fiat currency has even less meaning than it already does, and it’s only a matter of time before inflation runs wild.

It also means that any time our government says it “doesn’t have money” for a project, it’s laughable. It can clearly “create” as much as it wants for bombing and death. This would explain how Donald Trump’s military can drop well over 100 bombs a day that cost well north of $1 million each.

So why can’t our government also “create” endless money for health care, education, the homeless, veterans benefits and the elderly, to make all parking free and to pay the Rolling Stones to play stoop-front shows in my neighborhood? (I’m sure the Rolling Stones are expensive, but surely a trillion dollars could cover a couple of songs.)

Obviously, our government could do those things, but it chooses not to. Earlier this month, Louisiana sent eviction notices to 30,000 elderly peopleon Medicaid to kick them out of their nursing homes. Yes, a country that can vomit trillions of dollars down a black hole marked “Military” can’t find the money to take care of our poor elderly. It’s a repulsive joke.

Twenty-one trillion.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke about how no one knows where the money is flying in the Pentagon. In a barely reported speech in 2011, he said, “My staff and I learned that it was nearly impossible to get accurate information and answers to questions such as, ‘How much money did you spend?’ and ‘How many people do you have?’ ”

They can’t even find out how many people work for a specific department?

Note for anyone looking for a job: Just show up at the Pentagon and tell them you work there. It doesn’t seem like they’d have much luck proving you don’t.

For more on this story, check out David DeGraw’s excellent reporting at ChangeMaker.media, because the mainstream corporate media are mouthpieces for the weapons industry. They are friends with benefits of the military-industrial complex. I have seen basically nothing from the mainstream corporate media concerning this mysterious $21 trillion. I missed the time when CNN’s Wolf Blitzer said that the money we dump into war and death—either the accounted-for money or the secretive trillions—could end world hunger and poverty many times over. There’s no reason anybody needs to be starving or hungry or unsheltered on this planet, but our government seems hellbent on proving that it stands for nothing but profiting off death and misery. And our media desperately want to show they stand for nothing but propping up our morally bankrupt empire.

When the media aren’t actively promoting war, they’re filling the airwaves with shit, so the entire country can’t even hear itself think. Our whole mindscape is filled to the brim with nonsense and vacant celebrity idiocy. Then, while no one is looking, the largest theft humankind has ever seen is going on behind our backs—covered up under the guise of “national security.”

Twenty-one trillion.

Don’t forget.

Source: Ron Paul: Here’s 21 Trillion Reasons To Question The Role Of Government In America

It’s Like the 1950s All Over Again=> Democrats Kick Undesirable Family Out of Virginia Restaurant — The Gateway Pundit

In the 1950’s Democrats refused service to blacks at restaurants and soda fountains.

The laws were changed in the 1960s thanks to Republican votes.

This weekend the Democrats were back at it.
A Democrat restaurant owner in Virginia refused service to undesirable Sarah Sanders and her small children.

It’s like it’s the 1950’s all over again.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The Ku Klux Klan hate group was founded as the activist wing of the Democratic Party.
kkk rally 2
On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-American Republicans in Opelousas, Louisiana. The savagery began when racist Democrats attacked a newspaper editor, a white Republican and schoolteacher for ex-slaves. Several African-Americans rushed to the assistance of their friend, and in response, Democrats went on a “Negro hunt,” killing every African-American (all of whom were Republicans) in the area they could find. (Via Grand Old Partisan)

Democrats in hoods slaughtered hundreds of Republicans and blacks across the country in the late 19th and early 20th century.

On April 20, 1871 the Republicans passed the anti-Ku Klux Klan Act outlawing Democratic terrorist groups.

Republicans led the charge on civil rights and women’s rights.

This list was originally compiled by Michael Zak at Grand Ole Partisan and then posted at Free Republic:

September 22, 1862: Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues preliminary Emancipation Proclamation

January 1, 1863: Emancipation Proclamation, implementing the Republicans’ Confiscation Act of 1862, takes effect

February 9, 1864: Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to U.S. Senate supporting Republicans’ plans for constitutional amendment to ban slavery

June 15, 1864: Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil War

June 28, 1864: Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Acts

October 29, 1864: African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth says of President Lincoln: “I never was treated by anyone with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me by that great and good man”

January 31, 1865: 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

Republican Party Support: 100% Democratic Party Support: 23%

March 3, 1865: Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves

April 8, 1865: 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate

Republican support 100% Democrat support 37%

June 19, 1865: On “Juneteenth,” U.S. troops land in Galveston, TX to enforce ban on slavery that had been declared more than two years before by the Emancipation Proclamation

November 22, 1865: Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

1866: The Republican Party passes the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to protect the rights of newly freed slaves

December 6, 1865: Republican Party’s 13th Amendment, banning slavery, is ratified

*1865: The KKK launches as the “Terrorist Arm” of the Democratic Party

February 5, 1866: U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866: Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

April 19, 1866: Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slavery

May 10, 1866: U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866: U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

July 16, 1866: Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of Freedman’s Bureau Act, which protected former slaves from “black codes” denying their rights

July 28, 1866: Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymen

July 30, 1866: Democrat-controlled City of New Orleans orders police to storm racially-integrated Republican meeting; raid kills 40 and wounds more than 150

January 8, 1867: Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867: Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868: Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

May 20, 1868: Republican National Convention marks debut of African-American politicians on national stage; two – Pinckney Pinchback and James Harris – attend as delegates, and several serve as presidential electors

1868 (July 9): 14th Amendment passes and recognizes newly freed slaves as U.S. Citizens

Republican Party Support: 94% Democratic Party Support: 0%

September 3, 1868: 25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress

September 12, 1868: Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress

September 28, 1868: Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editor

October 7, 1868: Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868: While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

November 3, 1868: Republican Ulysses Grant defeats Democrat Horatio Seymour in presidential election; Seymour had denounced Emancipation Proclamation

December 10, 1869: Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870: The US House ratifies the 15th Amendment granting voting rights to all Americans regardless of race

Republican support: 97% Democrat support: 3%

February 25, 1870: Hiram Rhodes Revels becomes the first Black seated in the US Senate, becoming the First Black in Congress and the first Black Senator.

May 19, 1870: African American John Langston, law professor and future Republican Congressman from Virginia, delivers influential speech supporting President Ulysses Grant’s civil rights policies

May 31, 1870: President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870: Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870: Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

December 12, 1870: Republican Joseph Hayne Rainey becomes the first Black duly elected by the people and the first Black in the US House of Representatives

In 1870 and 1871, along with Revels (R-Miss) and Rainey (R-SC), other Blacks were elected to Congress from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina and Virginia – all Republicans.

A Black Democrat Senator didn’t show up on Capitol Hill until 1993. The first Black Congressman was not elected until 1935.

February 28, 1871: Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

March 22, 1871: Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina

April 20, 1871: Republican Congress enacts the (anti) Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans

Read the rest here.

via It’s Like the 1950s All Over Again=> Democrats Kick Undesirable Family Out of Virginia Restaurant — The Gateway Pundit

June 24, 2018 Afternoon Verse Of The Day

The Necessary Foundation

And be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. (5:21)

This verse is a transition to Paul’s extensive discussion of relationships that continues through 6:9. The general principle of mutual submission, be subject to one another, not only is a product of the filling of the Spirit (as indicated in the precious chapter) but is also the foundation of the more specific principles of authority and submission—in relation to husbands and wives, parents and children, and masters and slaves—with which the larger passage deals.

Among the worst tragedies of our day is the progressive death of the family as it has been traditionally known. Marital infidelity, exaltation of sexual sin, homosexuality, abortion, women’s liberation, delinquency, and the sexual revolution in general have all contributed to the family’s demise. Each one is a strand in the cord that is rapidly strangling marriage and the family.

Gays and lesbians are demanding the right to be married to each other, and many states as well as a growing number of church groups are recognizing that as a right. Lesbian couples, and even some gay couples, are bringing together the children they have had by various lovers of the opposite sex and calling the resulting group a family. Many unmarried women elect to keep and raise children to whom they have given birth. In such situations single-parent families are becoming as much a matter of choice as of necessity.

The new mentality about marriage is reflected in the belief of some sociologists and psychologists that marriage ought to radically change or be eliminated altogether—based on the argument that it is but a vestige of man’s primitive understanding of himself and of society. Man “come of age” is presumed not to need the restrictions and boundaries that once seemed essential for productive, satisfying life.

Without a proper basis of authority for relationships, people grope for meaningful, harmonious, fulfilling relationships by whatever means and arrangements they can find or devise. Experimentation is their only resource and disintegration of the family—and ultimately of society in general—is being disclosed as the inevitable consequence.

It is time for Christians to declare and live what the Bible has always declared and what the church has always taught until recent years: “God’s standard for marriage and the family produces meaning, happiness, blessedness, reward, and fulfillment—and it is the only standard that can produce those results.”

Yet confusion about God’s standard for marriage and the family has found its way even into the church. A generation ago only one in every five hundred couples in the church got a divorce. Today the divorce rate in the church is many times that figure and becoming worse, and the church must deal with the problem in its own midst before it can give effective counsel to the world.

Divorce within the church has become so common that one Virginia pastor devised a special service in which, after the husband and wife state vows of mutual respect, God’s blessing is invoked on the dissolution of their marriage. Partly because of the tragedies they have seen in marriages, especially that of their own parents, many young adults opt for simply living together. When one or the other becomes tired of the arrangement, they break up and look for someone else. Whatever minimal commitment may be involved is superficial and temporary. Lust has replaced love, and selfishness rules instead of sacrifice.

Many marriages that manage to avoid divorce are nevertheless characterized by unfaithfulness, deceit, disrespect, distrust, self-centeredness, materialism, and a host of other sins that shatter harmony, prevent happiness, and devastate the children.

With increased divorce comes decreased interest in having children. Some authorities estimate that in perhaps a third of the couples of child-bearing age, one or both of the partners have been sterilized. A growing percentage of babies conceived even within marriage are aborted because they are unwanted. And many who are allowed to be born are neglected, resented, and abused by their parents. Couples who do have children are having them later in life, so that the children do not inhibit the parents’ plans for fun and fulfillment.

The pastor of a large evangelical church reported that, although most of them claimed to be Christians, at least seventy percent of the couples who came to him to be married were already living together. Many of them claimed that it was God’s will for them to be married; but by living in such flagrant disobedience of His moral standards they had no basis for knowing His will about their marriage. Other couples who claim to be Christian come to be married for the second, third, or fourth time—and often maintain that the Lord has guided them each time.

God will forgive, cleanse, and restore the repentant believer, but He does not change His standards of righteousness and purity and does not promise to remove the often tragic consequences of disobedience. If the church seeks to accommodate those divine standards to the foolishness and sinfulness of its own members, it not only offends and grieves God but undercuts its testimony to the world. If marriage cannot be right in the church it can hardly be right in the world, any more than it was in Paul’s day.

In New Testament times women were considered to be little more than servants. Many Jewish men prayed each morning: “God, I thank you that I am not a Gentile, a slave, or a woman.” The provision related to divorce and remarriage in Deuteronomy 24 had been distorted to include virtually any offense or disfavor in the eyes of the husband. In Greek society the women’s situation was even worse. Because concubines were common and a wife’s role was simply to bear legitimate children and to keep house, Greek men had little reason to divorce their wives, and their wives had no recourse against them. Because divorce was so rare, there was not even a legal procedure for it. Demosthenes wrote, “We have courtesans for the sake of pleasure, we have concubines for the sake of daily cohabitation, and we have wives for the purpose of having children legitimately and being faithful guardians for our household affairs.” Both male and female prostitution were indescribably rampant, and it is from the Greek term for prostitution and general unchastity (porneia) that we get our word pornography. Husbands typically found their sexual gratification with concubines and prostitutes, whereas wives, often with the encouragement of their husbands, found sexual gratification with their slaves, both male and female. Prostitution, homosexuality, and the many other forms of sexual promiscuity and perversion inevitably resulted in widespread sexual abuse of children—just as we see in our own day.

In Roman society things were worse still. Marriage was little more than legalized prostitution, with divorce being an easy legal formality that could be taken advantage of as often as desired. Many women did not want to have children because it ruined the looks of their bodies, and feminism became common. Desiring to do everything men did, some women went into wrestling, sword fighting, and various other pursuits traditionally considered to be uniquely masculine. Some liked to run bare-breasted while hunting wild pigs. Women began to lord it over men and increasingly took the initiative in getting a divorce.

Paul admonished believers in Ephesus to live in total contrast to the corrupt, vile, self-centered, and immoral standards of those around them. The relationship between husband and wife was to be modeled on that between Christ and His church. “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (5:23–25). The relationship between Christian husbands and wives is to be holy and indissoluble, just as that between Christ and His church is holy and indissoluble. Christian marriages and families are to be radically different from those of the world. The relationships between husbands and wives and parents and children is to be so bathed in humility, love, and mutual submission that the authority of husbands and parents, though exercised when necessary, becomes almost invisible and the submission of wives and children is no more than acting in the spririt of gracious love.

In the Song of Solomon we see a beautiful model for marriage. Although the husband was a king, the dominate relationship with his wife was that of love rather than authority. The wife clearly recognized her husband’s headship, but it was a headship clothed in love and mutual respect. “Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the young men,” she said. “In his shade I took great delight and sat down, and his fruit was sweet to my taste. He has brought me to his banquet hall, and his banner over me is love” (2:3–4). A banner was a public announcement, in this case an announcement of the king’s love for his wife which he wanted to proclaim to the world. She not only had the security of hearing him tell her of his love but of hearing him tell the world of that love. “Sustain me with raisin cakes, refresh me with apples, because I am lovesick,” she continued. “Let his left hand be under my head and his right hand embrace me” (vv. 5–6). Her husband was her willing and eager protector, provider, and lover.

Solomon responded by saying to her, “Arise, my darling, my beautiful one, and come along. For behold, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone” (vv. 10–11). Spring had come and his only thoughts were of his beloved. There was no hint of authoritativeness or superiority, but only love, respect, and concern for the welfare, joy, and fulfillment of his wife. She expressed the deep mutuality of their relationship in the expression “My beloved is mine, and I am his” (v. 16) and later, “This is my beloved and this is my friend” (5:16).

Families are the building blocks of human society, and a society that does not protect the family undermines its very existence. When the family goes, everything else of value soon goes with it. When the cohesiveness, meaningfulness, and discipline of the family are lost, anarchy will flourish. And where anarchy flourishes, law, justice, and safety cannot. The family nourishes and binds society together, whereas the anarchy that results from its absence only depletes, disrupts, and destroys.

The unredeemed can benefit greatly from following God’s basic principles for the family, but the full power and potential of those principles can be understood and practiced by those who belong to Him by faith in His Son. Paul speaks to the Ephesians as fellow Christians, and apart from the divine life and resources that only Christians possess, the principles for marriage and the family that he gives in this letter are out of context and thus of limited benefit. The basic principle of being subject to one another finds its power and effectiveness only in the fear of Christ. The family can only be what God has designed it to be when the members of the family are what God has designed them to be—“conformed to the image of His Son” (Rom. 8:29). Just as an individual can find fulfillment only in a right relationship with God, so the family can find complete fulfillment only as believing parents and children follow His design for the family in the control and power of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18b).

Persons who do not know or even recognize the existence and authority of God are not motivated to accept God’s standard for marriage and the family or for anything else. They do not have the new nature or inner resources to fully follow those standards even if they wanted to.

Some years ago I was asked to speak on the Christian sex ethic to a philosophy class at a large secular university. Knowing the futility of trying to explain biblical sexual standards to those who question or openly reject the authority of Scripture, I began my presentation by saying words to this effect: “Christ’s standards of ethics cannot be understood or appreciated by anyone who does not know Him as Savior and Lord. I do not expect most of you to agree with what Scripture says about sex ethics because most of you do not agree with what Scripture says about Jesus Christ. The presupposition of scriptural standards for anything is that a person have a right relationship to the One whose Word Scripture is. Only when you know and love the Lord Jesus Christ can you understand and desire to fulfill His standards for sex.” One student raised his hand and said, “Well then, maybe you had better tell us how to know and love Jesus Christ.” Gladly following that suggestion, I spent most of the hour showing the necessity and means for believing in Christ and devoted the last few minutes to explaining what commitment to Him means specifically in relation to sexual standards.

Only those who have died to sin and are alive to God (Rom. 6:4–6), those who are servants of righteousness (Rom. 6:16–22), those who are spiritually minded (Rom. 8:5–8), those who are empowered by the Spirit (Rom. 8:13) will rejoice for the privilege of living in the Lord’s standard. Reverencing and adoring Christ is the basis of such a spirit of submission.

Unfortunately, many persons who know Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord do not maintain their living according to His moral, marital, and family laws. Because they are not at all times filled with His Spirit and fall to the level of the society around them, they are not sufficiently motivated or empowered to be obedient to their Lord in all things. They possess the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit does not possess them. Consequently, many Christian couples argue and fight worse than many unbelievers. Many families in false religions, for example, and even some unreligious families, are more disciplined and harmonious on the surface than some Christian families. A carnal believer will have discord in his family just as he has discord in his own heart and in his relation to God.

We are drowning in a sea of marriage information today. A book on sex and marriage, whether from a secular or Christian viewpoint, is sure to sell. Many purportedly Christian books are as preoccupied with and indelicate about sex as their secular counterparts. Marriage conferences, seminars, and counselors abound—some of which may be solidly scriptural and well presented. But apart from a believer’s being filled with the Holy Spirit and applying the ever-sufficient Word of God, even the best advice will produce only superficial and temporary benefit, because the heart will not be rightly motivated or empowered. On the other hand, when we are filled with the Spirit and thus are controlled in divine truth, we are divinely directed to do what is pleasing to God, because His Spirit controls our attitudes and relationships.

James said, “What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members?” (James 4:1). Conflicts in the church, in the home, and in marriage always result from hearts that are directed by the self rather than by the Spirit of God. When self insists on its own rights, opinions, and goals, harmony and peace are precluded. The self-centered life is always in a battle for the top, and pushes others down as it climbs up in pride. The Spirit-centered life, on the other hand, is directed toward lowliness, toward subservience, and it lifts others up as it descends in humility. The Spirit-filled believer does “not merely look out for [his] own personal interests, but also for the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4).

Be subject is from hupotassō, originally a military term meaning to arrange or rank under. Spirit-filled Christians rank themselves under one another. The main idea is that of relinquishing one’s rights to another person. Paul counseled the Corinthian believers to be in subjection to their faithful ministers “and to everyone who helps in the work and labors” (1 Cor. 16:16). Peter commands us to “submit [ourselves] for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God” (1 Pet. 2:13–15; cf. Rom. 13:1–7). A nation cannot function without the authority of its rulers, soldiers, police, judges, and so on. Such people do not hold their authority because they are inherently better than everyone else but because without the appointment and exercise of orderly authority the nation would disintegrate in anarchy.

Likewise within the church we are to “obey [our] leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over [our] souls, as those who will give an account” (Heb. 13:17). God ordains that pastors and elders in the church be men. “Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness,” Paul said. “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Tim. 2:11–12). Paul was not teaching from a personal bias of male chauvinism, as some claim, but was reinforcing God’s original plan of man’s headship. “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve,” he explained. “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression. But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint” (vv. 13–15).

The submissive role of the woman was designed by God in creation and affirmed by His judicial act in response to the Fall. Yet the balance of responsibility and blessing is found in the woman’s bearing of children. She is saved from seeking the role of a man and from identification as a second-class person by giving birth to children and being occupied with them, as well as by having the major influence on their early training and development. Women who have children and pursue a life of faith, love, holiness, and self-control give their best to their family, and thus to society. God has designed and called women to give birth to children, to nurse, caress, teach, comfort, and encourage them in their most formative years—in a way that fathers can never do. That should occupy their time and energy and preclude their seeking a place of leadership in the church.

When the church tries to operate apart from God’s system of authority it creates confusion and frequently heresy. When Mary Baker Eddy took to herself the role of church leader and preacher, Christian Science was born. When Madam Elena Petrovna Blavatsky assumed the role of theologian and spiritual teacher, Theosophy was born. When Mrs. Charles Fillmore took to herself the same prerogatives, Unity was born. When Aimee Semple McPherson began preaching, Foursquare pentecostalism was born.

As with leaders in government, it is not that church leaders are inherently superior to other Christians or that men are inherently superior to women, but that no institution—including the church—can function without a system of authority and submission.

In the home, the smallest unit of human society, the same principle applies. Even a small household cannot function if each member fully demands and expresses his own will and goes his own way. The system of authority God has ordained for the family is the headship of husbands over wives and of parents over children.

But in addition to those necessary social functional relationships of authority and submission, God commands all Christians—leaders as well as followers, husbands as well as wives, parents as well as children—to “have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and … humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:5–8).

As Paul went on to explain (Eph. 5:22–6:9), the structural function of the family, like that of the church and of government, requires both authority and submission. But in all interpersonal relationships there is only to be mutual submission. Submission is a general spiritual attitude that is to be true of every believer in all relationships.

Even the authority-subject relationships in the church and home are to be controlled by love and modified by mutual submission. Wives have traditionally received the brunt of Ephesians 5:22–33, although the greater part of the passage deals with the husband’s attitude toward and responsibilities for his wife. Paul devoted twice as much space to the husband’s obligations as to the wife’s. The husband not only is “head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church” (v. 23) but husbands are commanded to “love [their] wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (v. 25). “Husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies, … even as [themselves]” (vv. 28, 33). Christ’s giving His life for the church was an act of divine submission of the Lord to His bride, that He might cleanse, glorify, and purify her “that she should be holy and blameless” (v. 27).

Likewise in the home, not only are children to “obey [their] parents in the Lord,” but fathers are not to “provoke [their] children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (6:1, 4). Even while exercising authority over their children, parents are to submit to the children’s moral and spiritual welfare. In love, husbands are to submit themselves to meeting the needs of their wives, and together they both are called to give themselves in love to their children.

In New Testament times, slaves were often an integral part of the household, and Paul’s admonition to masters and slaves essentially dealt with family relationships. The husband and wife were masters of the household, of which the slaves and hired servants were an integral part. Here, too, Paul made clear not only that Christian slaves were to “be obedient to those who are [their] masters according to the flesh” and do good things for them (6:5, 8), but that masters were likewise to do good things for their slaves “and give up threatening, knowing that both [the slave’s] Master and [their own] is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him” (v. 9).

Every obedient, Spirit-filled Christian is a submitting Christian. The husband who demands his wife’s submission to him but does not recognize his own obligation to submit to her distorts God’s standard for the marriage relationship and cannot rightly function as a godly husband. Parents who demand obedience from their children but do not recognize their own obligation to submit in loving sacrifice to meet their children’s needs are themselves disobedient to their heavenly Father and cannot rightly function as godly parents.

In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul made clear that the physical relationships and obligations of marriage are not one-sided. “Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife,” he says, “and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does” (vv. 3–4). Although God ordains husbands as heads over their wives, and parents as heads over their children, He also ordains a mutuality of submission and responsibility among all members of the family.

Although Christ was in the beginning with God and was God (John 1:1), was one with the Father (10:30), and was in the Father as the Father was in Him (14:11), He was nevertheless subject to the Father. From childhood Jesus devoted Himself to His Father’s work (Luke 2:49), submitted Himself to His Father’s will (John 5:30; 15:10; 20:21), and could do nothing apart from His Father (John 5:19). In explaining God’s order of relationships, Paul says, “Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:3). Just as the Son is submissive to the Father in function but equal to Him in nature and essence, wives are to be submissive to their husbands, while being completely equal to them in moral and spiritual nature.

All believers are spiritual equals in every sense. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). We submit to one another as the Holy Spirit influences us to do so.[1]

21 Grammatically, a final participle concludes Paul’s statement concerning the outcomes of the Spirit’s filling of the congregation. To speaking, singing, music making, and giving thanks, Paul adds continual submission to one another. Grammatically, the participle “submitting” functions as the fifth outcome for those filled by the Spirit. That is, the filling of the Spirit produces all these, and mutual submission, the final effect, results in specific behaviors within the household—precisely what 5:22–6:9 describes. However, because v. 21 is conceptually tied to what follows in the Haustafel (household code)—which grows directly out of the verb “submit”—we begin a new section here. Clearly the participle for “submission” is the understood, though unstated, verb that underlies v. 22 and all that follows. The fullness of the Spirit leads not to individualism or independence, or to an attitude of superiority or “lording it over” others. The attitude of “mutual submission” characterizes the congregation filled by the Spirit. Paul mandates mutuality in the church through the use of the reciprocal pronoun “to one another” (allēlois); see also 4:2, 25, 32 (cf. Ro 12:5). This precludes the view of some that Paul intended for Christians to submit only to those over them: wives to husbands, children to parents, and slaves to masters. Jesus himself set the standard when he said, “The greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves” (Lk 22:26). And when Jesus washed his disciples’ feet, he illustrated the principle and applied it to his followers (Jn 13:1–17). Yet a caution is valid: mutual submission does not relativize the specific commands that follow. (Lincoln, 366, wisely sounds this note.) Apparently, Paul did not view mutual submission and hierarchical roles as incompatible. We ought not to minimize either one at the expense of the other. Paul disagrees with those who infer that subordination always implies inferiority. In the course of his extensive analysis of the household codes, Hoehner, 726, observes, “Subordination does not imply a qualitative difference.”

“Submit” translates the verb hypotassō (GK 5718), which, used in the passive voice here, bears the sense, “subject oneself,” “be subjected or subordinated to some authority”—a word used thirty-eight times in the NT, twenty-three times by Paul (cf. BDAG, 1042). The call to unity (4:1–4) demands this essential attitude. Believers are called to “submit to one another”—to subordinate their own interests to the needs of other believers so that the welfare of these others assumes more importance than their own (cf. Php 2:1–11). Paul calls not for the domination of some but for the voluntary submission of all (cf. Eph 4:2–3). The call for one to submit to another arises within this larger understanding of the mutuality of the body of Christ.

This submission to one another occurs “out of reverence for Christ,” literally, “in the fear of Christ” (so NASB). The “fear of the Lord” appears in both Testaments to describe the stance of those who acknowledge God’s sovereignty (2 Ch 19:7; Job 28:28; Ps 111:10; Pr 1:7; Ac 9:31; 2 Co 5:11). It is the way of wisdom and knowledge to reverence God in one’s actions. Because Christians live under Christ’s authority as judge, they must submit to fellow believers. Paul does not view submission as an optional virtue for some believers; it is the duty of all who reverence Christ. Though the specific command to “submit” occurs in what follows only in the words to wives, clearly it governs the instructions to husbands, children, parents, slaves, and masters. This is how people in a church filled by the Spirit treat one another—even within their own households.

Household codes or regulations were features of the first-century world. Called a Haustafel (German for “house table,” coined by Luther), such a social code governed and explained the expectations for people in various relationships. Lincoln, 358, points out that the household was viewed as the foundation of the state, so such codes were crucial in helping members understand their places and functions in society. Contemporary examples abound, though no exact parallels to what Paul does have been found. Why did Paul use this format here and in Colossians? He adopted this traditional format, as did other Christian writers, because he was concerned about relationships and the outworking of Christian values within Roman society. At the same time, he was eager that believers not violate certain social expectations or norms, and so he delineated behavior that was respectable and appropriate, using a culturally expected means to articulate Christian values that should prevail among church members.[2]

5:21 / The final manifestation noted is in submission: Scholars, and consequently Bible translators, are divided on how this verse fits into the context. Grammatically, it belongs to the section on worship (5:18–21) and should be seen as another manifestation of the Spirit-filled believer. As singing and thanksgiving are to be expressed corporately, members also must willingly submit to one another. Fullness of the Spirit leads to mutual subordination and unity, not to individual pride and disunity (cf. 1 Cor. 14:26–33; Phil. 2:1–5). At the same time, 5:21 is a transitional verse from which the author proceeds to illustrate how that submission is to be observed in specific domestic relationships (5:22–6:9).

If 5:21 is taken as an independent sentence then it serves as a heading for the specific relationships that follow. Some translations, namely, gnb and rsv, use it this way. The niv, however, lets it stand with the previous section. In either case, the position of the verse is not as important as its teaching—a teaching in which believers are exhorted to submit themselves to one another out of reverence for Christ. “We are not asked to yield to the wishes of others, no matter what they wish, but only when what they ask of us is in line with reverence for Christ” (Mitton, p. 196).[3]

[1] MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1986). Ephesians (pp. 271–278). Chicago: Moody Press.

[2] Klein, W. W. (2006). Ephesians. In T. Longman III & D. E. Garland (Eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians–Philemon (Revised Edition) (Vol. 12, pp. 146–148). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[3] Patzia, A. G. (2011). Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon (pp. 264–265). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Poll: 62% of Americans think media is biased

Poll shows many Americans think media is biased and full of misinformation. FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the most watched television news channel for more than 15 years and according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, is the most trusted television news source in the country.

ENFORCING IMMORALITY: Canadian Christian Law School Denied Accreditation Because of Belief in Traditional Marriage

Absolute Truth from the Word of God

I call this the Sodom and Gomorrah Syndrome.

We know that we are in the end of the end days.  But take heart, brethren. As I’ve heard many Bible Prophecy teachers and watchers say:

Things are not falling apart – they are falling into place.

If the Democrats do well in the midterms (they’ve had a lot of time to rig the ballot boxes and add deceased people to voting registrars) and if (God forbid it) they get back into the White House, then what we are seeing happening in Trudeau’s Canada – will undoubtedly happen here.

I read recently that there are at least 3.5 million more names registered to vote than there are people over the age of 18. The National Review calls these people GHOST VOTERS  –source

From thenewamerican.com

The Supreme Court in Canada has ruled that a Canadian evangelical Christian university can be denied accreditation for…

View original post 921 more words

WATCH: CNN panel diagnoses mainstream media’s problem, explains why America doesn’t trust them

A CNN panel lambasted TIME magazine on Friday over the publication’s dishonest magazine cover that drove outrage over the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” border policy by deceitfully depicting a 2-year-old crying Honduran girl as being separated from her mother.

The cover’s depiction, which showed the girl cowering to President Donald Trump, was dishonest because the actual girl in the viral image was never separated from her mother. In fact, according to the photographer who took the photo, the girl cried because her mother was being detained for illegally entering the U.S.

Indeed, the girl’s father later verified that the girl was never separated from her mother and that the two were safe at a detention center in the U.S.

What did the panel say?

Despite outrage over the policy, which the media has partially driven, the CNN panel, consisting of CNN’s Mary Katherine Ham and Jackie Kucinich, was only interested in honest dialogue.

The women concluded that what TIME did was wrong — and it only further drives a wedge between mainstream America and the media.

“Not just Republicans should pounce, media should pounce, Democrats should pounce, because when you make someone the emblem of a problem in a land where people have a lot of suspicions about media coverage and think this might be somebody messing with them or exaggerating a problem that existed in a different capacity under Obama,” Ham said.

“Then yeah, when you put that person as the symbol and it turns out she is not affected by that policy and was in fact not separated and her mother was a repeat offender coming over the border again…yes people are going to wonder if you’re lying to them about other things,” Ham added.

Kucinich agreed with Ham’s analysis.

“It is infuriating that this happened because it hurts all media, it hurts all media,” she said. “And the fact that this story about this little girl was too good to check — DO BETTER!”

Source: WATCH: CNN panel diagnoses mainstream media’s problem, explains why America doesn’t trust them

Why Did Susan Rice Order Cyber Security Chief To ‘Stand Down’ In Response To Russian Meddling Just As FBI Began Trump/Russian Collusion Probe?

The left certainly outdid themselves last week. From activists chanting “shame, shame, shame” at DHS secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in a DC restaurant and Time Magazine’s deceitful cover, to former Sex and the City actress and current New York gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon calling ICE a “terrorist organization,” liberals really went into overdrive. Were they trying to call attention away from what should have been a bigger story?

Nearly lost in the cacophony was the testimony of former Obama administration cyber security coordinator Michael Daniel before the Senate Intelligence Committee, confirming that he was told by Susan Rice to “stand down” in his efforts to thwart Russian meddling in our 2016 election.

The FBI had recently begun their counterintelligence investigation into Trump’s possible collusion with the Russians. If administration officials were so worried about Russian influence, why would they issue such an order?

Although Hillary had a significant lead in the polls at that time, they still needed to lay the groundwork for what FBI official Peter Strzok referred to as their “insurance” policy. Considered in this context, the order starts to make sense.

Strzok sent the following text to FBI lawyer Lisa Page, his paramour, in August 2016.

I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.

“Andy” refers to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe who denied participating in such a discussion when questioned by Inspector General Michael Horowitz (IG). Strzok claims McCabe was there.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) wants to know which one is lying and asked the IG, as he testified before Congress last week, to “hand over” the pertinent documents, saying:

I believe it would be of grave consequence if the Deputy Director of the FBI met with the lead investigator of the Clinton Email and Russia investigations to talk about ‘an insurance policy’ against Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 election. That would show bias and inappropriate behavior at the highest levels of the FBI.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) also questioned the IG about the insurance policy.

Mr. Inspector General, that is two weeks into an investigation, and he is talking about taking out an insurance policy because he can’t fathom the target of his investigation possibly becoming the president.

Finally, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked the IG about it.

I think a lot of regular folks would interpret that as more than just casting a cloud on what the FBI ultimately did. I mean, it’s one thing to say ‘Trump’s an idiot’; it’s another thing to say, ‘We’ve got an insurance policy.’

Journalists Michael Isikoff and David Corn co-authored a book entitled “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump. The book made the claim that Susan Rice, obviously acting on Obama’s behalf, issued the stand down order in August 2016, shortly after the Obama FBI had opened their investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russians, and at the same time Strzok was texting Page about the insurance policy. Excerpts from The Daily Caller’s report follow:

Daniel was developing strategies to respond to Russian cyber attacks on U.S. companies and political campaigns. He proposed using what’s known as denial of service attacks to take down Russian propaganda news sites and to attack Russian intelligence agencies.

Another idea was to announce a bogus “cyber exercise” against a Eurasian country. The goal was to put the Kremlin on notice that it’s infrastructure could easily be targeted by the U.S.

Rice opposed the proposals, according to “Russian Roulette.”

Don’t get ahead of us, ”she told Daniel in a meeting in August 2016, according to the book.

Daniel informed his staff of the order, much to their frustration.

“I was incredulous and in disbelief,” Daniel Prieto, who worked under Daniel, is quoted saying in “Russian Roulette.”

“Why the hell are we standing down? Michael, can you help us understand?” Prieto asked.

Daniel confirmed the exchange on Wednesday, during a round of questions from Idaho Sen. Jim Risch.

“That is an accurate rendering of the conversation at the staff meeting,” he testified.

“You were told to stand down, is that correct?” Risch, a Republican, asked Daniel.

“Those actions were put on the back burner, yes. That was not the focus of our activity during that time period,” Daniel replied.

He noted the White House cybersecurity team did continue working to respond to Russia, but with a smaller staff and a less aggressive approach.

“It’s not accurate to say that all activity ceased at that point,” he said, declining to describe the activities in an unclassified hearing.

Coincidence? Every step ever taken by the Obama administration was calculated and deliberate.

If Obama and his advisors were so concerned with Russia’s interference in our presidential election, which was well known to them long before that time, why would they put the brakes on attempts to stop it?

This was the administration whose motto was, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

Did Obama and his team see an opportunity to frame Trump for colluding with the Russians? Could this have been the genesis of the “insurance policy?” Yes and yes.

By August 2016, Obama’s FBI had already applied to the FISA court once (unsuccessfully) for a warrant to surveil low-level Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. They hired Stephen Halper, a Cambridge professor “with deep ties to American and British intelligence,” to interact with Page, advisor George Papadopoulos, and Trump campaign co-chair Sam Clovis. His efforts, particularly with Papadopoulos, amounted to entrapment.

In addition, FBI investigators:

Issued national security letters to gather records, and unmasked the identities of campaign officials who were surveilled. They also repeatedly leaked investigative information.

Built a narrative of Trump-Russia collusion, a group of government officials sought to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s electoral chances and, if the unthinkable happened, obtained an insurance policy to cripple the Trump administration with accusations of illegitimacy.

Perhaps most telling of all is Rice’s remark, “Don’t get ahead of us.” Why not Susan? Because they might interfere with the administration’s methodical plan to frame, and then destroy, Trump?

Unethical and, in many cases, illegal behavior became the norm among Obama’s top officials. Their hatred of Trump and their inability to accept his victory blinded them to the impropriety of their actions. The magnitude of their corruption is breathtaking, but slowly the truth is being revealed.

As one humorous reader recommended, let’s round up all the bad actors from the Obama administration on the same day and hold them without bail. Then we can have one big show trial like Nuremberg for crimes against the citizens of the United States.

Source: Why Did Susan Rice Order Cyber Security Chief To ‘Stand Down’ In Response To Russian Meddling Just As FBI Began Trump/Russian Collusion Probe?

HUGE! Devin Nunes Gives DOJ Til 5 PM Monday to Reveal When the Spying on Trump Campaign Began! — The Gateway Pundit


The Department of Justice sent Intel Chairman Devin Nunes a response on Friday night to requests for information from the DOJ and FBI on internal spying on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, something that is unprecedented in US history.

Here’s the letter from the FBI to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA):

But, once again, the DOJ and Rod Rosenstein refused to turn over all of the information.

Rep. Devin Nunes sent a new letter to the DOJ on Sunday. Nunes is giving the Rosenstein and the DOJ until Monday at 5 PM to turn over the rest of the documents on the illegal spying on the Trump campaign.

Rep. Nunes wants the DOJ to reveal when the spying on the Trump campaign began.

It is widely believed the spying took place before July 2016 when the DOJ previously said the spying began.

Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures mentioned the demands this morning on her weekly show.

Rep. Nunes warned last week “there will be hell to pay” if the documents are not turned over.

Via Sunday Morning Futures:

via HUGE! Devin Nunes Gives DOJ Til 5 PM Monday to Reveal When the Spying on Trump Campaign Began! — The Gateway Pundit