Daily Archives: August 12, 2018

August 12: At a Great Price

Isaiah 25:1–26:21; Luke 9:1–27; Job 6:1–13

It’s easy to be devoted to a leader or a vision when it doesn’t require much of us. In following Jesus, the disciples didn’t have that option. They were called to follow Jesus in difficult circumstances—ones that required them to put their lives on the line. After Jesus told His disciples about His impending death and resurrection, He defined the true meaning of discipleship. His words required their immediate response and intense loyalty:

“And he said to them all, ‘If anyone wants to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross every day and follow me’ ” (Luke 9:23).

Daily the disciples needed to commit to Him, the kingdom He was ushering in, and the possibility of facing death. We like to quote this verse, but we might not think it applies in the same way today. Because we don’t face the same circumstances the disciples faced, we might not take the call to loyalty quite as seriously.

But loyalty shouldn’t be dictated by circumstance. Jesus had “to suffer many things and to be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and to be killed” (Luke 9:22) to reconcile us to God. His sacrifice was incredibly costly; the grace extended to us came at a great price.

His sacrifice—not our circumstances—requires everything from us. It requires that we see our motives, our hopes, our actions—our daily lives—in the perspective of that costly grace. Jesus went on to say, “For what is a person benefited if he gains the whole world but loses or forfeits himself?” (Luke 9:25). The gospel changes everything, and it speaks into every area of our lives. It requires us to deny our own interests. It requires us to take up our cross daily and follow Him.

How are you taking up your cross daily? What area of your life do you need to commit to Him?

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.

Devin Nunes: Clinton Campaign Colluded with ‘Nearly Every’ Top Official at the DOJ and FBI | Breitbart

Sunday on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures,” House Intelligence Committee chairman  Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) said the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton’s “colluded” with “nearly every” top official in the Justice Department and FBI. Nunes said, “What’s come out now, Maria, is that he has been the go-between Christopher Steele, so once Christopher Steele was terminated as a source, for doing all things like talking to the media, at the behest of Glenn Simpson, remember he was working for Glenn Simpson Fusion GPS, who are working for the Clinton Campaign. Christopher Steele was fired, a lot of this information wasn’t shared with the FISA court, especially because of the fact that Christopher Steele was desperate that Donald Trump not become president. After that happened, Bruce Ohr, one of the top lawyers in the Department of Justice, kept continually meeting and providing information from Christopher Steele to who? The FBI.” He continued, “This is just madness. The American people need to know it. I will tell you, like I said in the last segment, the fact that the media is ignoring this is even more of a reason that we’re going to have to have more information than usual declassified. We’re going to have to have, I think, an unprecedented amount of information declassified because the media is just not covering this topic.”

He added, “Don’t forget that Bruce Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, who also will have to be interviewed soon, she also was working for Fusion GPS, working for the Clinton campaign. So here you have information flowing from the Clinton campaign from the Russians, likely I believe was handed directly from Russian propaganda arms to the Clinton campaign, fed into the top levels of the FBI and Department of Justice to open up a counter intelligence investigation into a political campaign that has now colluded with nearly every top official at the DOJ and FBI over the course of the last couple years.”

(h/t Washington Examiner)
— Read on www.breitbart.com/video/2018/08/12/devin-nunes-clinton-campaign-colluded-with-nearly-every-top-official-at-the-doj-and-fbi/

August 12 Love in Action

“Love is patient … kind … not jealous … does not brag … is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly … does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:4–7).


Love is difficult to define, but it can be described by the behavior it produces.

Paul painted a portrait of the kind of love Jesus wants to produce in every believer. It is, in fact, a portrait of Christ Himself, who is love’s highest expression. Unlike most English translations, which include several adjectives, the Greek forms of all those properties are verbs. They do not focus on what love is so much as on what love does and does not do.

Set against the backdrop of the Corinthians’ self-promoting behavior, Paul’s words are a strong rebuke. He says in effect, “Love is patient, but you are impatient. Love is kind, but you are unkind toward those who disagree with you. Love is not jealous, but you envy those with certain spiritual gifts. Love does not brag, but you are proud of your theology. Love is not arrogant and does not act unbecomingly, but often you are rude and ill-mannered toward one another.

“Love does not seek its own, but you are self-centered. Love is not provoked, but you quarrel among yourselves. Love does not take into account a wrong suffered, but you hold grudges against each other. Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but you delight in one another’s failures. Love rejoices with the truth, but you distort and disobey God’s Word.

“Love bears all things, but you are defensive and resentful. Love is eager to believe the best about someone, but you are quick to assume the worst. Love never gives up and can tolerate incredible opposition, but you are weak and intolerant.”

Paul wanted the Corinthians to see the deficiencies in their love in light of the truth and then make the needed corrections. You and I must do the same. So as we explore each of love’s characteristics, ask the Holy Spirit to purify your heart so others will clearly see Paul’s portrait of love on display in you.


Suggestions for Prayer:  Read 1 Corinthians 13:4–7, substituting “Jesus” for “love.” Then praise Him for all His excellencies.

For Further Study: What does 1 John 3:13–18 teach about love?[1]

[1] MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1993). Drawing Near—Daily Readings for a Deeper Faith (p. 237). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Lindsay Graham: ‘These Investigations Against Trump Were Corrupt to the Core’ | Breitbart

On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the FBI investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, which has turned into special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, was “corrupt at the core.” Partial transcript as follows: MACCALLUM: I want to ask you before I let you go a non-foreign policy question with regards to Bruce Ohr, who is a Department of Justice official Who worked under Sally Yates and just a few offices down from the head of the Justice Department. He’s becoming a much more central figure in what looks to be the initiation of this Russia investigation. What do you know about that? GRAHAM: Well, he was the number four guy at the Department of Justice. His wife worked for Fusion GPS, the firm hired by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to get — to find dirt on Trump. They hired Christopher Steele, a former British agent, who went to Russia to gather a dossier that I think is a bunch of political garbage. Here’s what I would tell the American people. Both campaigns were investigated by the FBI and the Department of Justice in 2016. When it came
— Read on www.breitbart.com/video/2018/08/12/lindsay-graham-these-investigations-against-trump-were-corrupt-to-the-core/

Praying for Our Daily Bread… Abandoning Tomorrow’s Worries | Bible Thumping Wingnut

“How great the value which this truth teaches us to attach to each single day! We are so easily led to look at life as a great whole, and to neglect the little to-day, to forget that the single days do indeed make up the whole, and that the value of each single day depends on its influence on the whole. One day lost is a link broken in the chain, which it often takes more than another day to mend. One day lost influences the next, and makes its keeping more difficult. Yea, one day lost may be the loss of what months or years of careful labour had secured. The experience of many a believer could confirm this.” — Andrew Murray

A good friend of mine posted this quote on social media. I can relate, because there are days where my goal is to just get through it… rather than slowing down to take in the moments that God has given me.

Praying for Our Daily Bread

This goes along with something which has impacted my prayer life recently… realizing that my prayers (as taught by Christ Himself) ought to focus on today, and not necessarily tomorrow or the next day, but today. Not that it is wrong for me to pray about tomorrow, but maybe it is more proper for me to pray for TODAY, how I am to deal with what I might see on the horizon. The thing is, the horizon may or may not ever come. Therefore, I ought to instead focus on asking the Lord to be with me this day. After all, Jesus did not teach His disciples to pray for tomorrow’s bread, but today’s…

Matthew 6:11 (HCSB)

Give us today our daily bread.

A few verses later, Jesus made this point about putting too much emphasis upon tomorrow, rather than today…

Matthew 6:33-34 (HCSB)

But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be provided for you. Therefore don’t worry about tomorrow, because tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

The half-brother of Jesus would later also touch upon this concept when he wrote to the 12 tribes in the dispersion regarding their materialistic mindset…

James 4:13-15 (HCSB)

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will travel to such and such a city and spend a year there and do business and make a profit.” You don’t even know what tomorrow will bring — what your life will be! For you are like smoke that appears for a little while, then vanishes.

Instead, you should say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.”

Abandoning Tomorrow’s Worries

It is so tempting to get caught up in what tomorrow might bring.

As James wrote, we must realize that our lives are “like smoke that appears for a little while, then vanishes.” It is why Jesus encouraged that our prayers be rooted in today, instead of tomorrow.

May we (Christians) learn to pray about the moment we are in, abandoning the worry we create when we lose sight of the peace that Christ has provided us….

Philippians 4:4-7 (HCSB)

Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your graciousness be known to everyone. The Lord is near. Don’t worry about anything, but in everything, through prayer and petition with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses every thought, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.

Godspeed, to the brethren!

To read more from theidolbabbler click here.

Read more BTWN articles by theidolbabbler – here
— Read on biblethumpingwingnut.com/2018/08/12/praying-for-our-daily-bread-abandoning-tomorrows-worries/

False Teachers Do Not Comprehend the LOVE of God

Absolute Truth from the Word of God

 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;  and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables”  (2 Timothy 4: 3-4).

I can just hear the evil one as he whispers:

“God welcomes ALL into his body;  He doesn’t mind if you are living the gay lifestyle or if you are a transgender – He welcomes ALL because God is LOVE.”  <hissssssss>

Almost every heretical ministry can be traced back to an unbalanced and unbiblical view of the attributes of God.

Isn’t God Love?

Of course He is Love. But He is also Just, Righteous and Holy.  These attributes of our Lord are not as popular with the apostate churches.

God is God and we are NOT.  GOD IS…

View original post 2,287 more words


For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

Hebrews 13:14

Brethren, it is a fact indeed, that we will never fully realize in our earthly life what it means to be coheirs with Christ!

The apostles have made it quite plain that all of the eternal implications of our heavenly inheritance will not be known to us until we see Christ face-to-face in a future time.

I have said that only a Christian has the right and can afford to die! But if we believers were as spiritual as we ought to be, we might be looking to our “home going” with a great deal more pleasure and anticipation than we do.

I say also that if we are true believers in the second advent of our Savior, we will be anticipating His return with yearning. Common sense, the perspective of history, the testimony of the saints, reason and the Bible—all agree with one voice that He may come before we die.

The Christian believer whose faith and hope are in Jesus Christ alone knows that he may die before the Lord comes. If he dies, he is better off, for Paul said, “It is far better that I go to be with the Lord” (see Philippians 1:23).

You’ve placed eternity in our hearts, Lord. Therefore, You’ve created us with a built-in desire to live with You in heaven. I pray that all my family members will come to know You before it’s too late.[1]

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

Emails Show Fusion GPS Lied About 2016 Contacts With DOJ – Report

The research firm responsible for the production of the salacious dossier alleging Donald Trump had “golden shower” orgies in Moscow told the US Congress in 2017 it had no contact with US Justice Department officials before the 2016 election. Newly revealed email exchanges between the firm and a Justice Department high official show that was a lie.

Source: Emails Show Fusion GPS Lied About 2016 Contacts With DOJ – Report

Over 100 Newspapers Collude To Decry Trump’s “Dirty War On The Free Press”

Yesterday, we noted The Boston Globe’s ‘call to action’ for the nation’s newspapers to collude to fight back against what they called Trump’s “dirty war against the free press.”

“We propose to publish an editorial on August 16 on the dangers of the administration’s assault on the press and ask others to commit to publishing their own editorials on the same date,” The Globe said in its pitch to fellow papers.

Today we see the results.

As of today, CNN reports that Marjorie Pritchard, the Globe’s deputy editorial page editor, says “we have more than 100 publications signed up, and I expect that number to grow in the coming days.”

The American Society of News Editors, the New England Newspaper and Press Association and other groups have helped her spread the word.

“The response has been overwhelming,” Pritchard said. “We have some big newspapers, but the majority are from smaller markets, all enthusiastic about standing up to Trump’s assault on journalism.”

Instead of printing the exact same message, each publication will write its own editorial, Pritchard said. That was a key part of her pitch:

“The impact of Trump’s assault on journalism looks different in Boise than it does in Boston,” she wrote. “Our words will differ. But at least we can agree that such attacks are alarming.”

Pritchard said she expects differing views from the editorials, “but the same sentiment: The importance of a free and independent press.”

CNN proudly crows that the coordinated editorials may be another example of unity across the news business, or, as we noted previously, another example of supreme hypocrisy – as a ‘free and independent’ press being coerced to collude on the same story against their President.

Finally, the ‘media’ should be a little careful what they wish for, as Axios show below, the Trump news cycle is paying their bills handsomely.

The first half of 2018 has been extremely busy, as seen in Google News Lab’s data on the googling trends of the public. It shows when and how much people searched about 30 of the biggest news events.

Source: Over 100 Newspapers Collude To Decry Trump’s “Dirty War On The Free Press”

“LOCK HER UP!” Calls For Omarosa to be Prosecuted Grow After She Secretly Recorded President Trump, Others in Oval Office — The Gateway Pundit

Social media was set ablaze Sunday after Omarosa released a secret recording of President Trump.

This is a clear security breach and people from both sides of the aisle are calling for Omarosa to be locked up.

Far left CNN correspondent April Ryan was furious with Omarosa and said recording President Trump is a security breach.

APRIL RYAN: Omarosa! I hear you mentioned me on Meet The Press. Don’t reference me or use my name. Keep my name out of your mouth. You have done enough. Your lies and crazy behavior are catching up to you. Can you say National Security breach? Lawyer up!

John Podhortez of the New York Post said: If Omarosa taped Kelly in the Situation Room, that is presumably a crime. She should be prosecuted, precisely because if she isn’t there will be no deterrent in future.

GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said Omarosa should be prosecuted if she broke federal law.

Charlie Kirk slammed Omarosa and called for her to be locked up.

Candace Owens also called for Omarosa to be prosecuted and locked up.

via “LOCK HER UP!” Calls For Omarosa to be Prosecuted Grow After She Secretly Recorded President Trump, Others in Oval Office — The Gateway Pundit

Dinesh D’Souza and the Decline of Conservatism

Few have enjoyed quite so spectacular a comeback under President Trump as the conservative polemicist and filmmaker, Dinesh D’Souza. In 2012, D’Souza resigned as president of a Christian college amid charges of adultery and deception. In 2014, D’Souza pled guilty to violating federal campaign-finance laws. He was sentenced to eight months of confinement followed by 52 months’ probation.

Now, as the saying goes, D’Souza is back—and bigger than ever. He has reinvented himself as something like the court intellectual of the age of Trump. Trump pardoned D’Souza on May 31, 2018. At the beginning of August, Donald Trump Jr. cohosted the premier of D’Souza’s latest movie, Death of a Nation. The movie compares Donald Trump to Abraham Lincoln and his Democratic opponents to Nazis. Afterward, Trump Jr. delivered a memorable summation of what he had learned from the film. “You see the Nazi platform in the early 1930s and what was actually put out there … and you look at it compared to like the DNC platform of today, and you’re saying, man, those things are awfully similar, to a point where it’s actually scary.”

If you need a historian’s point-by-point refutation of D’Souza’s grotesque and absurd abuse of history, Princeton’s Kevin Kruse has posted a useful recapitulation.

I find myself pondering a different question as I watch so many people I have known and admired subordinate their talents and their integrity to Trumpism: How has my political generation of conservatives and Republicans laid itself so intellectually and morally low?

Dinesh D’Souza and I have moved in the same circles for close to three decades. He has been a guest at my dinner table; the back cover of my first book published back in 1994 carries a blurb from him. I’ve been disturbed by his evolution over the past decade and have sometimes said so publicly. Yet there is no denying his influence and success. It was D’Souza whom Newt Gingrich was citing when he mused in 2010: “What if [President Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” In 2012, D’Souza would release a movie on the Obama-Kenya-anticolonial theme. Conservatives across America have, to date, paid $33 million to watch it.

In the early part of his career, Dinesh D’Souza had followed a conventional path. While always enjoying the part of the polemicist and the provocateur, he settled down at age 30 to grind out two serious books under the auspices of prestigious conservative institutions like the American Enterprise Institute. The first of the books, a 1991 critique of American universities, earned both commercial success and respectful reviews. The second and more ambitious of those books, 1995’s End of Racism, encountered a much more hostile reception. A 2014 profile of D’Souza by Mark Stricherz in The Atlantic described what happened next.

In October 1995, writer Glenn Loury and community builder Robert L. Woodson Sr. announced they were resigning their posts at the American Enterprise Institute because D’Souza was a fellow there. D’Souza took the episode as proof that critics outside the conservative orbit were committed more to a political agenda than the truth with a capital “T.” Already a recent convert to the idea that book sales were not wedded to critics’ judgments, D’Souza decided to stop writing with one eye on the reaction of critics.

D’Souza quickly discovered much more spectacular new material rewards in the conservative mass market. But even as he prospered, his anger at his 1995 rejection by the scholarly and intellectual world burned hotter and hotter. In 2006, he published a book that opened with this startling claim:

The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11. … Some leading figures in this group are Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, George Soros, Michael Moore, Bill Moyers, and Noam Chomsky. Moreover the cultural left includes organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization for Women, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Watch, and moveon.org.

In faulting the cultural left, I am not making the absurd accusation that this group blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world. … [W]ithout the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened.

D’Souza then urged American conservatives to make common cause with Muslims worldwide against gay rights, feminism, and secularism generally.

The book incensed many conservatives. In a 6,500-word reply to his conservative critics in National Review, D’Souza complained they had “blindsided” him. “What I say may be flawed or wrongheaded, and I am happy to learn from my mistakes, but why the savagery of the attacks? What heresy have I committed that the angry men of the Right have drawn their daggers against me?”

D’Souza’s self-isolation from the conservative world did not last long. But his feelings of persecution did. A new note enters his writing after 2006, and it intensified after his forced resignation in 2012 and his guilty plea in 2014—a quest for self-vindication.

D’Souza got into legal trouble by donating $20,000 to the campaign of an old friend from his Dartmouth days. He evaded federal finance limits by giving $5,000 in his own name, $5,000 in the name of his assistant, $5,000 in the name of his estranged wife, and $5,000 in the name of his then-girlfriend. This contrivance somehow came to the attention of federal investigators. D’Souza has complained—accurately—that much bigger donors direct much larger sums to their preferred candidates. He became convinced that he had been singled out for retribution by the Obama White House. He writes in the preface of Death of a Nation:

I had been reckless in giving the Obama administration a pretext to go after me. Didn’t I know there was a target on my back? I had just made a movie—the second highest-grossing political documentary of all time—exposing the leader of the United States as a hypocrite and a fraud. I knew, better than most, what a thin-skinned narcissist he was. Shouldn’t I have expected him to use his full power to retaliate?

D’Souza remarried in 2016. The wedding was officiated by Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael Cruz. The Hollywood Reporter interviewed D’Souza at that time about his then-new movie, Hillary’s America, which previewed the themes of his Trump-era work. D’Souza told the paper: “This movie goes to the heart of the Democratic claim of moral superiority.”

Resentment against people who enjoyed undeserved admiration and acclaim from here onward became the central them of D’Souza’s work. Back in 2011, D’Souza had expressed a deep feeling of identification with President Obama. In Roots of Obama’s Rage, he wrote:

I’m a native of Mumbai, India, so I grew up in a different part of the world, as Obama did. I’m nonwhite, as he is. He had a white mom and grew up in an interracial family; I have a white wife, and we have a mixed-race daughter. Like Obama, I see America both from the inside and from the outside. We were born in the same year, 1961, so we’re the same age. Obama and I attended Ivy League colleges, graduating in the same year, 1983; we also got married in the same year, 1992. He went into elective politics, while I have spent my life writing about politics and once served in the White House as a policy adviser. In sum, both of us have cosmopolitan backgrounds, grew up in the same era, and have made our careers in American politics.

And yet one served in the Oval Office, while the other would serve time in prison.

The desire to wipe the smirk off the condescending face of some resented critic—to expose them, diminish them, hurt them—is that not the mainspring for so much of the pro-Trump political movement?  Shortly before the 2016 election, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal seethed at those who believe that “not only is Donald Trump coarse and boorish, anyone who supports the man is as revolting as he is.” The conservative columnist David Limbaugh lamented in the summer of 2017 the “snobbish condemnation” he suffered on social media from Never Trump conservatives. Tucker Carlson Tonight is a nightly eruption of rage against elite “preening.” “Don’t for a second let them take the moral high ground,” he warned in June of this year. Certainly in D’Souza’s case, Obama’s success came to seem more and more of an affront to the proper order of things.

There is obviously much for a conservative to criticize in the Obama record at home and abroad. Unlike Bill Clinton, who in many ways ratified the legacy of Ronald Reagan, Obama repudiated it. Yet an annoying thing for those who disliked Obama’s politics: He is at the same time a genuinely high-quality personality—intelligent, considerate, dignified, and self-disciplined. Those who hated him were deprived of any rational basis to despise him. Lacking a rational basis, they reverted to irrationality instead.

Which is how the Dinesh D’Souza who in 1995 proclaimed “the end of racism” in America could react to a humorous 2015 photograph of Obama playing with a selfie stick: “YOU CAN TAKE THE BOY OUT OF THE GHETTO … Watch this vulgar man show his stuff, while America cowers in embarrassment.”

Even as D’Souza published books attributing all American racism to “the Democrats,” his own writing seemed gripped by an ever less controlled and concealed racial animus.

Hostile racial stereotypes of blacks, D’Souza observes midway through The Big Lie, “were not racist fictions.” They persisted, he claims, because they contain truth—such as, for example, the stereotype of “the whimsical, happy-go-lucky, semi-idiotic Sambo.”

Midway through The Big Lie, D’Souza approvingly cites Stanley Elkins’s “startling insight” that hostile racial stereotypes—such as “the whimsical, happy go lucky, semi-idiotic Sambo”—are “not racial fictions.”

The animus shines even more brightly through the pages of Death of a Nation. Here’s D’Souza’s narrative from Death of a Nation of how the Great Society followed consistently and directly from slavery: “No longer would Democrats directly rip off the blacks by stealing their labor. Now blacks would become partners with Democrats in a scheme to extract resources from other Americans.”

Here’s his description of the origin of the scheme in the racist imagination of Lyndon Johnson:

We Democrats are going to create a new planation for you, this time in the towns and cities. On these new plantations, unlike on the old ones, you don’t have to work. In fact, we would prefer if you didn’t work. We are going to support you through an array of so-called poverty programs and race-based programs. Essentially we will provide you with lifetime support, just as in the days of slavery. Your job is simply to keep voting us in power so that we can continue to be your caretakers and providers.

Here’s D’Souza’s description of what happened once blacks were assured the right to vote: “On this plantation they [blacks] had a different casting role, not as exploited workers who did not vote but rather as exploited voters who did not work.”

Here’s his appraisal of the working lives of contemporary black Americans: “The slaves all worked while many modern urban planation dwellers don’t, nor do they aspire to do so in the normal, productive economy. To the extent they have jobs, those jobs are criminal assignments.”

At one point, D’Souza acknowledges that he is straying into controversial ground in his harsh assessment of the mentality of black Americans. “I have to tread carefully,” he says, and offers an analogy from Indian society to clarify his meaning while minimizing offense. The pathetic dependency of African Americans on Lyndon Johnson’s welfare state, D’Souza writes, reminds him of untouchables in his native India. “The untouchables too fell into a kind of collective stupor in which they could hardly imagine an escape from their degraded lot.”

Whites, by contrast, are described by D’Souza in admiring, almost heroic terms. “There is one group that the Democrats have not managed to enslave: working-class whites. … They were part of FDR’s labor coalition. But now they have broken loose … I call this group ‘holdouts.’ Trump is their hero, and this white working class is attracted to his populist American nationalism, both on economic and cultural grounds.”

“The white working class remains as ornery, rebellious, and independent-minded as it always was. It hasn’t given in; it hasn’t thrown in the towel.”

“[Working-class whites] are down, but they are not yet out. They may not have jobs, but they still have a work ethic. Their families and communities may be hurting, but they still what to pull them together.”

“Only whites—even whites undergoing economic hardship and plagued by cultural dysfunction—have so far resisted succumbing to the lure of the Democratic plantation.”

Perhaps the most striking reveal of D’Souza’s present attitudes is found in his 2017 book The Big Lie. There he references the Tulsa riot of 1921: “In that incident, supposedly in retaliation for an atrocious rape of a white woman by a black man, thousands of racist Democrats rampaged through black neighborhoods, burning homes, looting businesses, killing dozens of people, detaining hundreds, and leaving thousands of blacks homeless.”

It’s beyond strange that D’Souza would claim to know that all those anonymous rioters were Democrats, each and every one. Oklahoma in 1921 was, politically, a closely divided state. The state had a Democratic governor in 1921, but the mayor of Tulsa was a Republican, as were one of Oklahoma’s two U.S. senators and five of its nine U.S. representatives. The newspaper whose inflammatory coverage incited the riot had endorsed Warren G. Harding for president in 1920 and espoused a consistently pro-Republican editorial line.

Even stranger, though, is D’Souza’s account of the pretext for the riot: “Supposedly in retaliation for an atrocious rape of a white woman by a black man.” Historians concur that there was no such rape. The accused man—Dick Rowland was his name—and the purported victim, Sarah Page, were alone together in a busy office elevator for only a few minutes. Witnesses heard a woman’s scream, and then saw the young man run away. Tulsa police questioned both Rowland and Page the next day. Page declined to press charges. Rowland, who would survive the riot, was never prosecuted for any crime.

D’Souza likely knew all this; he took the trouble to insert the adverb “supposedly” before “in retaliation for an atrocious rape.” Yet he still insinuated a false impression of criminality into the minds of less-informed readers. If not ignorance, then carelessness? Bias? Or what?

At the beginning of Death of a Nation, D’Souza has words about those who misrepresent the historical record.

“What are the lies for? By this I do not mean, what is the psychological disposition of the people who tell such lies, but rather, what do they gain by telling them? What is the ultimate game plan of the liars? What ugly truths are they trying to camouflage through the lies that they tell?”

Those are powerful questions, but they redound most powerfully upon the man who wrote them. The psychology of aggrievement joined to racial resentment: Perhaps that is the recipe from which Trumpism has been brewed. It’s a dismaying thing to see so many in one’s political generation succumb to it.

Many of the disputes of the 1980s that excited me as a young conservative have subsided into forgetfulness. Who recalls now that it was once controversial that telephone services should be competitive rather than a regulated monopoly?

Meanwhile what was once universally accepted—American presidents should not try to incarcerate their political opponents—has now become the most hotly contested battleground. Try to imagine Ronald Reagan leading a chant of “Lock her up!” Try to imagine Walter Mondale doing it. Inconceivable. But it’s our present reality. We live in a new world, on unfamiliar terrain, amid awkward new political alliances and allegiances.

It’s stunning to those of us who came of age during the last phase of the Cold War to watch fellow members of our political generation enthuse over the Russian dictator, Vladimir Putin. Yet in 2015, D’Souza retweeted a beefcake image of a bare-chested Putin over the caption, “REAL MAN CONTEST: Putin rides bareback, while Obama fishes with gloves.” A year later, D’Souza added: “What @realDonaldTrump admires about Putin is the way Putin—unlike someone else we know—LOVES his country & FIGHTS for its interests.”

In this crisis, old arguments fade before new, old ideological categories look obsolete, and old comrades look like avowed enemies of one’s most dearly cherished institutions and values. And one is left to wonder: Did they really change so much? Or did I?

Source: Dinesh D’Souza and the Decline of Conservatism

VIDEO: The Rapture–The Event You Don’t Want to Miss

The Rapture is sooner than you think. Be ready! Stay ready! It is the Event of a lifetime that you do not want to miss. Do not miss this Event for the world. Our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed – Romans 13:11.

Source: VIDEO: The Rapture–The Event You Don’t Want to Miss

Anticipating Israel’s Nationality Law | Karsh and Bartal at Jerusalem Post

by Efraim Karsh and Shaul Bartal
Jerusalem Post
August 05, 2018


The recent passing of the “Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People” has generated a wave of criticism in both Israel and abroad. Yet the law did little more than institutionalize not only the 70-year-long reality of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947 but also the stipulation of the League of Nations, the UN’s predecessor, in the same vein.

On July 24, 1922, the League recognized “the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine” as “the grounds for reconstituting their national home in the country” and appointed Britain as the Mandatory for Palestine, with the explicit goal of “placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home.” Some 96 years later to the day, the Knesset echoed the League’s resolution, acknowledging the Land of Israel as “the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established” and defining this state as “the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.”

This, however, was not the first time for a national parliament to deliberate legislation recognizing Palestine as the national home of the Jewish People (as opposed to public acknowledgment of this fact, such as the US Congress’s July 1922 joint recognition of the Balfour Declaration). On April 12, 1938, the veteran British MP Commander Oliver Locker-Lampson asked the House of Commons to approve a “Jewish Citizenship Bill” that would enable Jews worldwide to become nationals of Mandatory Palestine, where the Jewish national home had yet to be established.

A staunch opponent of fascism in both Britain and Europe, Locker-Lampson had long been involved in helping Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution, including such luminaries as Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. Now that Germany had annexed Austria (on March 18, 1938), he was horrified by Hitler’s “calculated policy… to wipe out 300,000 innocents who have never done him or others any harm. Some of them have made Austria a sort of artistic center of Europe. Among them are the most eminent scientists in the world.”

Having failed five years earlier to persuade parliament to extend British citizenship to German Jewish refugees from the newly-established Nazi regime, Locker-Lampson sought to kill two birds with one stone: to save the largest number of Jews from Nazi persecution while holding Britain to its international obligation to facilitate the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Locker-Lampson was particularly appalled by the Peel Commission’s July 1937 recommendation to repudiate the League’s mandate for the creation of a Jewish national home and to partition Palestine into two states: an Arab state, united with Transjordan, which would occupy some 85% of Western Palestine (east of the Jordan River), and a Jewish state in the remainder. As he saw it, this defeatist submission to Arab violence not only jeopardized Britain’s geostrategic interests (“the creation of a State in Palestine of possibly millions of Jews,” he argued, “will act as a buffer State against any military monster who may advance from the North to seize the Canal or cut the pipe-line which  provides our only oil supply in the Mediterranean”), but also betrayed its obligation “to build up a Jewish citadel for refugees” at a time when “Jews are wantonly rendered homeless.”

He therefore proposed that Jews worldwide be granted the right to citizenship of the prospective Jewish national home even before its actual creation, which in practical terms meant becoming nationals of Mandatory Palestine regardless of where they resided at that time.

“It is forgotten that it is a very ancient principle, that of preserving citizenship to subjects of a State who remain abroad. For instance, there have been more citizens of Norway living outside than in Norway in one period of that country’s history. I would like to give the potentially persecuted Jew in Europe the chance, if he wishes it, of becoming a Palestinian subject. Why, for instance, should Jews in Poland, who cannot move to Palestine, not be able to take up extra-territorial citizenship? They would then become what Jews are in Palestine, protected persons under the Mandate and freemen of a State.”

Despite the spirited opposition of the Colonial Office, which ran an extensive campaign aimed at swaying public opinion and policymakers against the proposed bill, it nevertheless managed to gain substantive support, splitting the House of Commons right in the middle with 144 MPs voting in favor and another 144 opposed. And even this opposition seemed to have emanated from fear of a violent Arab backlash rather than rejection of the idea of the Jewish national home. In the words of the foremost naysayer in the parliamentary debate, “this Motion can only add to Arab fears without doing the Jews the slightest good.”

Of course, appeasement proved no more effective in the Middle East than in Europe. From the very beginning, the Arabs’ primary instrument for opposing Jewish national aspirations was violence, and what determined Arab politics and diplomacy was the relative success or failure of that instrument in any given period. The more the British caved in to this violence the harsher the Arab position became. Small wonder that London’s greatest concession – the abandonment of its international obligation to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish national home by the Peel Commission – was answered by the intensification of Arab violence throughout Palestine. A desperate British bid to end this violence through draconian restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchases (by the May 1939 Palestine White Paper), which would have effectively subverted the Jewish national revival in and surrendered European Jewry to its Nazi persecutor, elicited a similarly recalcitrant Arab response.

Nor did it matter whether opposition to the Jewish Citizenship Bill was motivated by rejection of the Jewish national home as such or fear of Arab violence as the outcome was equally devastating. Had the bill been passed and implemented, hundreds of thousands of European Jews would have been able to immigrate to their ancestral homeland, as envisaged by the League of Nations’ mandate, and would have spared the horrors of the Holocaust.

Efraim Karsh is director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, emeritus professor of Middle East and Mediterranean studies at King’s College London and editor of the Middle East Quarterly. Shaul Bartal is a research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

What Double Standard? Bill Maher Posts Photos Comparing GOP Politician to ‘Planet of the Apes’ Monkey – NO MEDIA OUTRAGE — The Gateway Pundit

In late May Roseanne Barr tweeted out a joke in poor taste directed at failed President Barack Obama’s top adviser Valerie Jarrett.

Roseanne was immediately fired by ABC.

Meanwhile Trump-basher Jimmy Kimmel posted a homophobic tweet attacking President Trump and still has a job.
Only conservatives are banished from ABC.

And now this…

On Thursday Bill Maher posted photos comparing Michele Bachmann  (not Bachman) to Leeta of Planet of the Apes.

Of course, there are no calls for Bill Maher to lose his show after his latest racist remarks.

The Democrats will ignore this.

Via Jack Posobiec:

via What Double Standard? Bill Maher Posts Photos Comparing GOP Politician to ‘Planet of the Apes’ Monkey – NO MEDIA OUTRAGE — The Gateway Pundit

Atheist gets her PhD in astronomy and astrophysics and finds evidence for God


Christianity and the progress of science Christianity and the progress of science

Christian apologist Terrell Clemmons tweeted this testimony by Sarah Salviander, a research scientist in astronomy and astrophysics at the prestigious University of Texas at Austin.

Dr. Salviander writes:

I was born in the U.S., but grew up in Canada. My parents were socialists and political activists who thought British Columbia would be a better place for us to live, since it had the only socialist government in North America at the time. My parents were also atheists, though they eschewed that label in favor of “agnostic.” They were kind, loving, and moral, but religion played no part in my life. Instead, my childhood revolved around education, particularly science. I remember how important it was to my parents that my brother and I did well in school.

I just want to point out that I hope that all you Christian parents are taking seriously the obligation…

View original post 1,266 more words

August 12, 2018 Afternoon Verse Of The Day

What Did God Redeem Believers With?

Knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold … but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. (1:18a, 19)

Psalm 49:7–8 says, “No man can by any means redeem his brother or give to God a ransom for him—for the redemption of his soul is costly, and he should cease trying forever.” Indeed the price “for the redemption of [a] soul is costly.” Peter appealed to his readers’ basic knowledge that there was nothing available to mankind that could meet that price. Knowing emphasizes that believers know that they were not redeemed with perishable things. Redemption’s price was not some valuable earthly commodity—like silver or gold. But why did Peter in this context even mention those prized metals? In this instance he quite possibly recalled the Old Testament passage about the ransom money God required the Israelites to pay (cf. Ex. 30:13, 15) for the action of numbering all males of military age:

The Lord also spoke to Moses, saying, “When you take a census of the sons of Israel to number them, then each one of them shall give a ransom for himself to the Lord, when you number them, so that there will be no plague among them when you number them. This is what everyone who is numbered shall give: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), half a shekel as a contribution to the Lord. Everyone who is numbered, from twenty years old and over, shall give the contribution to the Lord. The rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less than the half shekel, when you give the contribution to the Lord to make atonement for yourselves. You shall take the atonement money from the sons of Israel and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the sons of Israel before the Lord, to make atonement for yourselves.” (Ex. 30:11–16)

The taking of a census was a sin and considered as a lack of trust in God. On that one occasion when God ordered a census, He required a purification ceremony for cleansing. By that the Israelites would cancel the punishment implicit in the census. When Israel took a census in direct disobedience to God’s command not to do so, signifying an act of sinful distrust in His power, as David did in 1 Chronicles 21, Scripture records that he fell to Satan’s temptation to gratify his pride in the nation’s military strength. David’s failure to trust and obey God in dealing with his enemies incurred the Lord’s fury and moved Him to punish Israel with a lethal plague brought by a destroying angel (vv. 11–17).

Peter knew that, unlike the temporal redemption with money that God permitted the Israelites to purchase in Exodus 30, no amount of money could redeem people’s souls from the bondage of sin. The prophet Isaiah saw the true nature of God’s ultimate redemption of His people when he wrote, “For thus says the Lord, ‘You were sold for nothing and you will be redeemed without money’ ” (Isa. 52:3).

Having stated what believers were not redeemed with, Peter declared the means by which God did redeem them—with precious blood. He used blood as a vivid synonym for sacrificial death involving the shedding of blood. The blood was not just any blood but precious because it belonged to a lamb unblemished and spotless. Peter’s words implicitly picture the immense sacrifice the owner of such a lamb made when he killed his flock’s finest, purest, most perfect animal, the very kind of animal God always required for sacrifice (Lev. 22:19; Num. 6:14; 28:3–4; Deut. 15:21; 17:1; cf. Ex. 12:5; Lev. 22:17–25). No sacrificial lamb or any other animal sacrifice could ever really take away sin, as Hebrews 10:1–10 makes clear:

For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for Me; in whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure. “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come (in the scroll of the book it is written of Me) to do Your will, O God.’ ” After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (cf. 9:24–26; 10:11, 14)

Those sacrifices all showed the deadly effects of sin and pictured the idea of an ultimate substitute taking the sinner’s place—fulfilled in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ “once for all.” That Jesus was absolutely and perfectly unblemished and spotless is the clear testimony of Scripture, especially concerning the doctrine of imputation, as contained in 2 Corinthians 5:21, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”:

Imputation speaks of a legal reckoning. To impute guilt to someone is to assign guilt to that person’s account. Likewise, to impute righteousness is to reckon the person righteous. The guilt or righteousness thus imputed is a wholly objective reality; it exists totally apart from the person to whom it is imputed. In other words, a person to whom guilt is imputed is not thereby actually made guilty in the real sense. But he is accounted as guilty in a legal sense. It is a reckoning, not an actual remaking of the person’s character.

The guilt of sinners was imputed to Christ. He was not in any sense actually tainted with guilt. He was merely reckoned as guilty before the court of heaven, and the penalty of all that guilt was executed against Him. Sin was imputed, not imparted, to Him.

This is a remarkable statement: “[God] made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf.” It cannot mean that Christ became a sinner. It cannot mean that He committed any sin, that His character was defiled, or that He bore our sin in any sense other than by legal imputation.

Christ had no capacity to sin. He was impeccable. This same verse even says, “[He] knew no sin.” He was spotless. He had to be spotless in order to serve as the perfect substitute. He was holy, harmless, undefiled—separate from sinners (Heb. 7:26). He was without sin (Heb. 4:15). If sin had besmirched His character in any sense—if He had become an actual sinner—He would have then been worthy of sin’s penalty Himself and thus unqualified to render payment for the sins of others. The perfect Lamb of God could not be other than spotless. So the phrase “[God] made Him … to be sin” cannot mean that Christ was tainted with actual sin.

What it means is simply that the guilt from our sins was imputed to Him, reckoned to His account. Many Scriptures teach this concept: “He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities” (Isa. 53:5). “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross” (1 Peter 2:24). He bore “the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28).

So in 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul’s simple meaning is that God treated Christ as if He were a sinner. He imputed our guilt to Him and exacted from Him the full penalty for sin—even though Christ Himself knew no sin.

The guilt He bore was not His guilt, but He bore it as if it were His own. God put our guilt to Christ’s account and made Him pay the penalty for it. All the guilt of all the sins of all who would ever be saved was imputed to Jesus Christ—reckoned to His account as if He were guilty of all of it. Then God poured out the full fury of all His wrath against all of that sin, and Jesus experienced it all. That’s what this verse means when it says God made Christ to be sin for us. (John MacArthur, The Freedom and Power of Forgiveness [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1998], 25–26; emphases in original)

Since all sin is a violation of God’s holy law and a debt incurred to Him, He is the One to whom the price must be paid. Only the creditor can determine the terms of ransom or redemption. The price was not paid to Satan as some have suggested, as if he had been offended and needed to be compensated for sins against him. All sin is against God, and He sets the terms of redemption. The price He required as payment was the life of His own Son (Acts 20:28; Rom. 3:24–25; Gal. 4:4–5; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:13–14; Titus 2:13–14).

The blood of Christ is the most precious blood of all because He was the only utterly perfect person who ever lived (cf. John 1:14, 27; Heb. 4:14–15; 7:26–28). The writer of Hebrews captured the essence of Christ as the perfect Mediator and High Priest of the new covenant, made possible by His death as the perfect sacrifice:

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. (Heb. 9:11–15; cf. 4:15)

In many other passages the New Testament affirms the same truth of the uniqueness of Jesus’ atoning death (3:18; John 1:29; 1 Cor. 1:30; Gal. 3:13; Rev. 1:5; cf. 1 Peter 2:4; Rev. 5:6–9; 14:4).

The blood of Christ refers not to the fluid in His body, but to the whole of His redemptive death. Scripture speaks of Christ’s blood nearly three times as often as it mentions the cross, and five times more often than it refers to the death of Christ. The word blood, therefore, is the chief term the New Testament uses to refer to the atonement.

Peter wrote that election is “unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” (1:2, kjv). The “sprinkling of the blood” is what sealed the new covenant (cf. Heb. 9:1–18). “Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (v. 22). If Christ had not literally shed His blood in sacrifice for believers’ sins, they could not have been saved. This is one reason crucifixion was the means God ordained by which Christ should die; it was the most vivid, visible display of life being poured out as the price for sins.

Bloodshed was likewise God’s design for nearly all Old Testament sacrifices. They were bled to death rather than clubbed, strangled, suffocated, or burnt. God designed that sacrificial death was to occur with blood loss, because “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11).

The literal blood of Christ was violently shed at the crucifixion. Those who deny this truth or try to spiritualize the death of Christ are guilty of corrupting the gospel message. Jesus Christ bled and died in the fullest literal sense, and when He rose from the dead, He was literally resurrected. To deny the absolute reality of those truths is to nullify them (cf. 1 Cor. 15:14–17).

The meaning of the crucifixion, however, is not fully expressed in the bleeding alone. There was nothing supernatural in Jesus’ blood that sanctified those it touched. Those who flogged Him might have been spattered with blood. Yet that literal application of Jesus’ blood did nothing to purge their sins. Had the Lord bled without dying, redemption could not have been accomplished. If the atonement had been stopped before the full wages of sin had been satisfied, Jesus’ bloodshed would have been to no avail. If blood per se could redeem sinners, why did Jesus not just bleed and not die? He did not because the “shedding of blood” in Scripture is an expression that means more than just bleeding.

The biblical meaning in this matter is readily apparent. Romans 5:9–10 clarifies the point; those two verses side by side show that to be “justified by His blood” (v. 9) is the same as being “reconciled to God through the death of his Son” (v. 10). The critical element in salvation is the sacrificial death of Christ on sinners’ behalf. The shedding of His blood was the visible manifestation of His life being poured out in sacrifice, and Scripture consistently uses the term “shedding of blood” as a metonym for atoning death (Heb. 9:22; 12:4; cf. 9:12, 14; 10:19; 11:28; 13:12, 20; Ex. 12:7, 13, 22–23; 23:18; 30:10; 34:25; Lev. 16:27; 17:11; Deut. 12:27; Matt. 26:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 3:25; 1 Cor. 11:25; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; Col. 1:20; 1 Peter 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 1:5; 7:14).

So the blood of Christ is precious—but as precious as it is, that physical blood alone could not and did not save. Only when it was poured out in death could the penalty of sin be paid (Luke 24:46; Acts 17:3; Rom. 5:8–11; Eph. 2:13–16; Rev. 5:9; 13:8; cf. John 11:50–51).

It is important to note also that though Christ shed His blood, Scripture does not say He bled to death; it teaches rather that He voluntarily yielded up His spirit (John 10:18). Yet even that physical death could not have brought redemption apart from His spiritual death, whereby He was separated from the Father (cf. Matt. 27:46) by bearing the full guilt of all the sins of all who would ever be saved.

Clearly, though Christ shed His literal blood, many references to the blood are not intended to be taken in the literal sense. A strictly literal interpretation cannot, for example, explain such passages as John 6:53–54: “Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” It would be equally hard to explain how physical blood is meant in Matthew 27:25 (“His blood shall be on us and on our children”); Acts 5:28 (“[You] intend to bring this man’s blood upon us”); 18:6 (“Your blood be on your own heads”); 20:26 (“I am innocent of the blood of all men”); and 1 Corinthians 10:16 (“Is not the cup of blessing … a sharing in the blood of Christ?”).

Trying to make literal every reference to Christ’s blood can lead to serious error. The Roman Catholic doctrine known as transubstantiation, for example, teaches that communion wine is miraculously changed into the actual blood of Christ, and that those who partake of the elements in the mass literally fulfill Jesus’ words in John 6:54: “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Some claim that Christ’s blood was never truly human. Yet they insist on literalizing every New Testament reference to Jesus’ blood. They erroneously teach that the physical blood of Christ was somehow preserved after the crucifixion and carried to heaven, where it is now literally applied to the soul of each Christian at salvation.

Believers are not saved by some mystical heavenly application of Jesus’ literal blood. Nothing in Scripture indicates that the literal blood of Christ is preserved in heaven and applied to individual believers. When Peter here said saints are redeemed by the blood, he was not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven. The apostle meant they are saved by Christ’s sacrificial death.

In the same way, when Paul gloried in the Cross (Gal. 6:14), he did not mean the literal wooden beams; he was speaking of all the elements of the redeeming work. Just as the Cross is an expression that includes all of Christ’s atoning work, so is the blood. It is not the actual liquid that cleanses believers from sin, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring His blood out in death.[1]

18–20 In Petrine theology there is no tension between divine judgment and divine mercy. Having already offered praise to God for his great mercy and the believers’ living hope (1:3–5), Peter rehearses by means of standard paraenetic language (eidote) the marvel of redemption and the purchase price for that redemption—the blood of Christ. The metaphor of the slave market occurs frequently in the NT (e.g., Mk 10:45; Ro 6:15–23; 8:15; Gal 4:1–7; 1 Pe 1:18–19; 2:16; 2 Pe 2:19–22) and is critical to a proper understanding of the nature of salvation. It speaks to the condition of bondage caused by sin, to the beneficence of the one buying the slave, to the costly nature of the redemptive transaction, and to the state of freedom (i.e., the household) into which the redeemed is brought. From the Petrine perspective, reverential fear is heightened by the believers’ grateful awareness of the high cost of ransom. This cost, sacrificial blood, greatly exceeds the value of silver or gold used in the business transaction, either of which is perishable (cf. 1:4). The result is that the believer is brought into a marvelous spiritual freedom (2:16). Reverence acknowledges that the ransom price was indeed high.

This costly transaction, however, is presented in 1 Peter as no second thought or “plan B” in the counsel of God (cf. Ro 16:25–27; 1 Co 2:7–10; Eph 3:1–6; Col 1:26–27; Tit 1:1–3). Rather, the ransom, it is emphasized, was in the purpose of God “before the creation of the world,” even though it has been fully “revealed in these last times” for the sake of the saints. Once again, as in the letter’s opening, Peter appropriates the language of sovereign election: Christ, the unblemished sacrificial lamb (cf. the language of Ex 12:5 and Isa 52:13–53:12 and its resemblance to 1 Peter), was “chosen” or, more precisely, “foreknown” (proginōskō, GK 4589). Peter’s confession of Christ’s role in salvation history is a remarkable and compelling witness to the preexistence of the second person of the Trinity (on which cf. Jn 1:1–3; 17:5, 13, 18, 24; 8:16, 58; Php 2:6–11).[2]

1:18 / The cost of establishing such a relationship with God has been anything but cheap. Nor can it ever be calculated in terms of perishable things such as silver or gold, for they belong only to this material world and have nothing to do with eternal values. Peter’s reference to silver and gold as perishable in comparison with the blood of a sacrifice is remarkable, since in the literal sense the opposite is true. But the very boldness of the unexpected expression brings out the eternal character of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The redemption wrought by Christ was not the result of a business transaction involving the exchange of money. Nor is it necessary to debate, as did some of the early church fathers, to whom payment was made. That question does not arise, for we have here simply a commercial metaphor—which is still in use: “The victim sold his life dearly.”

The effect of Christ’s redemptive work is to deliver men and women from their past, which Peter describes as an empty way of life, and one that has been inherited, handed down … from your forefathers. The latter five words represent one word in the Greek, patroparadotos, and Peter seems to be the first Christian writer to use it. The term refers to a traditional religious way of life. When we bear in mind how very highly the ancient world esteemed patroparadotos, enduring and revered family religious traditions, the dramatic weight of Peter’s reference to empty (mataios) way of life is brought home, for the significance of mataios is “vain and useless idolatry.” The shackles of long-established religious traditions lie shattered, not because Christianity is a rival competitor but as a direct result of the liberation brought about by Jesus. Men and women can rejoice in a totally new life in Christ.

1:19 / The price of redemption is nothing less than the precious blood of Christ, that is, his sacrificial death upon the cross. That death fulfilled the meaning of the Passover sacrifice, which demanded a lamb without blemish or defect. The sacrifice of an animal, however perfect physically, could never in practice have taken away the sin of human beings. The two, animal and human, are not in the same class of creation. Furthermore, sin is a matter not of physique but of morality. Only another human being, and one who was perfect in every way, could match the need of the human race. But animal sacrifice could at least offer a picture of what was required, and this was the purpose of the ot ritual—until in the fullness of time, God sent his Son into the world (Gal. 4:4–5).

As if to make the association crystal clear, the nt not only likens the Son of God to a lamb without blemish or defect, the required standard of the Passover animal (Exod. 12:5), but also reveals that Jesus has the title of Lamb (John 1:29, 36; and 28 times in the book of Revelation). Paul unequivocally identifies Christ as “our Passover” (1 Cor. 5:7). Only the blood of the spotless Son of God could ever be sufficient to deal with the problem of sin (Heb. 9:11–14; Rev. 5:9) and thus pay the price of redemption.[3]

1:18–19. Redeemed is the dominant word used to describe our salvation hope. The word means “to release by paying a price or a ransom.” For the Jews, the picture of redemption would be God’s deliverance from Egypt. For the Gentiles, it would be the picture of a slave whose freedom was purchased. The message for both audiences is the same: before we can enter a relationship of faith with Jesus Christ, we must realize that we are slaves who need to be set free from our empty way of life.

An empty way of life is a life that has no real direction or purpose and leads to no good results (cf. Eph. 4:17). It is essentially a life of entrapment. Peter’s readers were trapped in the lifestyle inherited from their pagan ancestors. We are too often trapped in the pagan materialism inherited from our culture. It is a life that has no escape from the futile and sinful behavior that will end in condemnation from the Eternal Judge. The only escape comes through the death of Jesus Christ, who is described in verse 19 as the perfect sacrifice. Christ’s death was the ransom paid for our spiritual deliverance. The ransom was not paid with first-century currency, such as gold or silver. These commodities have no eternal value. Redemption was paid with the blood of Christ, upon which no value can be placed.[4]

18. For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19. but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

Note, then, the first doctrinal point.

  1. Redemption

This passage has a negative and a positive aspect. To put it differently, items that are perishable (silver and gold) are compared to Christ, whose blood has eternal significance.

  • “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed.” Here is a gentle reminder of what the readers know about their salvation: their knowledge of salvation has filled them with “an inexpressible and glorious joy” (v. 8). They know that God, through Christ, has redeemed them at an enormous cost.

Peter rates the cost of redemption first in terms of created things; they, of course, are subject to change and decay. He mentions two precious metals (silver and gold) that comparatively speaking are least perishable. First he specifies silver. But silver, when exposed to any sulphur compounds in the air, tarnishes, corrodes, and loses its value. Next Peter cites gold, which is more durable than silver. Even this precious metal is subject to decay. In brief, earthly possessions do not qualify as payment to redeem the believers (see Isa. 52:3).

When we use the word redeem today, we think of it in a reflexive sense: “I have redeemed myself.” We mean that we have regained our former standing. We also use the word when we exchange trading stamps for commodities at a redemption center. Last, we can redeem something by buying it back or by fulfilling financial obligations (e.g., by repaying a loan).

What does Scripture say? In the Old Testament, God redeemed his people from the yoke of slavery in Egypt (Exod. 6:6). He accomplished this by sending ten plagues on Israel’s oppressors. In the ancient world, slaves obtained freedom with a sum of money paid either by themselves or by someone else.

In the New Testament, the focus shifts to Christ. We read that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). Paul says that Christ Jesus “gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good” (Titus 2:14; also compare Ps. 130:8). Peter, too, uses the word redeem to refer to Christ’s death and our deliverance from sin (1:18–19).

  • “From the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers.” The phrase empty way of life describes a lifestyle that is without purpose, unfruitful, and useless. The text provides no information whether Peter is referring to the forefathers of the Jews who lived by tradition instead of God’s Word (Jesus rebuked the Jews for observing the traditions of the elders and setting aside the commands of God [Mark 7:5–13]). Another possibility is that Peter thinks of the pagan forefathers of the Gentile readers; in his epistles Paul comments on the futile life of the Gentiles (Rom. 1:21; Eph. 4:17). A third option is that Peter means the forefathers of both the Jews and the Gentiles.
  • “But with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.” Here is the positive aspect of our redemption. Peter speaks as a Jew who is fully steeped in the Passover history and ritual. The Jewish people were set free from slavery when each family took a lamb without defect, slaughtered it at twilight on the fourteenth of the month Nisan, put the blood on the sides and tops of the doorframes of their homes (Exod. 12:1–11), and ate the Passover.

The writers of the New Testament teach that Christ is that Passover lamb. John the Baptist points to Jesus and says, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). Paul comments that our redemption has been accomplished through Christ Jesus because “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement” (Rom. 3:25). The writer of Hebrews declares that Christ did not enter the Most Holy Place by means of the blood of goats and calves but entered “once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption” (9:12). And John in Revelation has recorded a new song that the saints in heaven sing to Christ: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (5:9).

The New Testament unfolds the teaching that Christ Jesus is our redeemer. In our Christian vocabulary, unfortunately, the word redeemer is not so common as the word savior. We readily acknowledge that Jesus Christ has saved us from the power and destruction of sin. Of even greater significance, however, is the truth that he has purchased us by shedding his precious blood on Calvary’s cross. Of the two terms, therefore, the expression redeemer deserves more prominence than the word savior.

With Philip P. Bliss every believer gratefully and joyfully sings:

I will sing of my Redeemer;

And His wondrous love to me;

On the cruel cross He suffered,

From the curse to set me free.[5]

1:18 Before their conversion, believers were not different from the rest of the world. Their talk and walk were as empty and trivial as that of men around them. Their unconverted days are described as your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers. But they had been ransomed from that futile existence by a tremendous transaction. They had been rescued from the slavery of world-conformity by the payment of an infinite ransom. Was it by silver or gold that these kidnap victims had been freed (see Ex. 30:15)?

1:19 No, it was with the precious blood of Christ—like the blood of a perfect, unblemished lamb. Christ is a lamb without blemish or spot, that is, He is absolutely perfect, inwardly and outwardly. If a believer is ever tempted to return to worldly pleasures and amusements, to adopt worldly modes and patterns, to become like the world in its false ways, he should remember that Christ shed His blood to deliver him from that kind of life. To go back to the world is to re-cross the great gulf that was bridged for us at staggering cost. But even more—it is positive disloyalty to the Savior.

“Reason back from the greatness of the sacrifice to the greatness of the sin. Then determine to be done forever with that which cost God’s Son His life.”[6]

1:18 Redeemed suggests the idea of offering something, usually money, in exchange for the freedom of a slave or a prisoner of war. God bought our freedom, paying for us with His Son’s life (v. 19). your aimless conduct: Peter’s focus is not on any specific action, but on the way of life that his readers inherited from their ancestors. Those old ways were futile, empty of power and incapable of securing salvation. Peter’s readers needed to be snatched from their hopeless condition.

1:19 precious blood: God’s way of salvation is contrasted to human attempts at gaining salvation through the use of earthly means (v. 18). a lamb: Peter describes Christ as the ultimate sacrificial Lamb, who is offered in our place to pay the price for our sins. The analogy here may be a reference either to the Passover lamb (Ex. 12:3–6) or to the many lambs without blemish that were offered as part of the OT sacrificial system (Lev. 23:12; Num. 6:14; 28:3). First-century believers recognized Jesus as the spotless Lamb of God who pays the price for the sin of the world (John 1:29).[7]

[1] MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (2004). 1 Peter (pp. 76–82). Chicago: Moody Publishers.

[2] Charles, D. J. (2006). 1 Peter. In T. Longman III & D. E. Garland (Eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews–Revelation (Revised Edition) (Vol. 13, p. 310). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[3] Hillyer, N. (2011). 1 and 2 Peter, Jude (pp. 49–50). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

[4] Walls, D., & Anders, M. (1999). I & II Peter, I, II & III John, Jude (Vol. 11, pp. 13–14). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

[5] Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953–2001). Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (Vol. 16, pp. 65–66). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

[6] MacDonald, W. (1995). Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments. (A. Farstad, Ed.) (p. 2255). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

[7] Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson’s new illustrated Bible commentary (p. 1679). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.

The Amazing Love Of The Savior

The Outspoken TULIP

So often, we take it for granted, don’t we? Yes, yes, we agree with confident nods of our heads, Jesus died to save us from sin. So, clutching our little Get Out Of Hell cards, we file away our blessed assurance and carry on with our lives.

But every now and again, the Holy Spirit reminds us of how desperately lost we were until He revealed Christ to us. He reminds us of the amazing love that caused the Second Person of the Trinity to leave His glory so that He could shed His blood in payment for our sin. He reminds us of our enslavement to sin before He shattered our chains and allowed us to follow Him.

When we remember, how can we take His amazing love for granted?

Follow my blog with Bloglovin

View original post

Far Greater Than These – Music Video — The Ignorant Fishermen Blog

Far Greater Than These
(Matt. 19:27-30, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 John 3:1-3, 1 Peter 1:18-19, Rev. 21; 22:1-5)


If I possessed, all riches and lands


And jewels that exceed all the grains of the sand


But far greater than these, vaster then earth’s vanities


Is my Father’s wondrous love for me



As I ponder the glorious thought


Of this world’s wonders my Savior has wrought


But far greater than these, vaster than the galaxies


Is my Father’s wondrous love for me



Eyes have no seen, nor the glories been told


His majestic ways, His children shall behold


But far greater than these, vaster than ETERNITY


Is my Father’s wondrous love for me



But far greater than these, vaster than ETERNITY


Is my Father’s wondrous love for me

via Far Greater Than These – Music Video — The Ignorant Fishermen Blog

Ascending: Legacy Media Spotlight Propels QAnon Movement — The Gateway Pundit

Over the last week the Washington Post, NYT, CNN. NBC News. CBS News, Bloomberg, The New Yorker, Vox, Daily Beast have all written a plethora of over 20 articles on the Qanon Movement all using highly similar talking points to marginalize the movement. Instead it’s just pushing it into the cultural mainstream– the Streisand Effect. MSM will never learn– lol!

WAPO published 3 articles in the last 4 days– lol! Crazytown– clearly MSM and their deepstate handlers see the movement as a threat coming up to the midterms. Such a coordinated major media barrage of negative coverage hasn’t been seen since WIkileaks published The Podesta Emails:

Into the Cultural Mainstream

Over the course of the last week, the cultural and political phenomenon known as the QAnon Movement has been categorically attacked by nearly every major legacy media organization in the US in what appears to be a coordinated effort to mischaracterize and discredit it in rapid succession.

Notable left-leaning publications from the Washington Post, NY Times, USA Today, Bloomberg, to magazines like The New Yorker, Newsweek, and Fortune, to national and cable news outlets such as NBC News, CNN, CBS News, and MSNBC, and even national broadcasting services such as PBS and the BBC have all shined in concert a glaringly critical spotlight on the movement.

Other than the consistently negative media coverage of President Trump, such a barrage of coordinated mainstream media attacks has not been seen since Wikileaks published The Podesta Emails in the final weeks before the 2016 US Presidential Election.

The coverage’s common denominator is the use of shared descriptives including “fringe, far-right, false, deranged, insane, bizarre, cult, and conspiracy theory” in an attempt to marginalize the movement.   The media blitz reached a zenith after President Trump’s rally in Tampa, Florida on July 31, where a contingency of attendees sported “Q” t-shirts and raised homemade placards directing viewers to #QAnon and to http://www.Qanon.pub, the website that re-publishes QAnon’s 8chan content.

By all objective standards, the popularity of the movement is on the rise.  Yet, QAnon remains by design inherently mysterious.  No one knows QAnon’s actual identity, as the information is exclusively published on the anonymous forum 8chan.  In an age increasingly characterized by big tech profiteering from the sale of users’ private metadata and algorithm-based censorship, 8chan remains one of the last online vestiges that values freedom of thought, speech, and information.

Some anon researchers believe QAnon is associated with the Q Group, the NSA’s secretive security and counterintelligence directorate, of which little is publicly known. If this is the case, QAnon would certainly hold a security clearance equivalent to that of a Department of Defense Top Secret Security Clearance.

QAnon’s content is equally enigmatic, embedded with multiple levels of meaning, mirrored codes, info-graphs, markers, connections, video clips, original photographic images, and coordinated timestamps, all converging into a highly sophisticated information treasure map of sorts.  QAnon has stated that the communications must be expressed in an indirect manner as the specific details are sensitive classified material, which by law cannot be openly stated.

These communications have inspired a 24/7 global research gathering on 8chan’s QResearch Board, composed of tens of thousands of anonymous researchers, who scour all open source information to substantiate, interpret, and expand upon QAnon’s posts.  The posts along with the best of the anon research are sent across the social media ecosystem at an astounding rate via a loyal vox populi distribution system.  In a recent article, Time claimed that QAnon was among the 10 most influential voices on the internet today.

QAnon’s central theme is that President Trump, along with patriotic elements of the US Military and Intelligence Community, are currently in a real-time battle to disrupt and dismantle highly corrupt, criminal, and, often times, seditious governmental and private sector corporate systems in the US and internationally.  President Trump and his alliance are preparing to expose and prosecute these layers of identified bad actors, who are the authors and operators of this systemic corruption. Many in the higher echelons of the legacy media infrastructure are also implicated.

QAnon claims that these bad actors have literally sold out US National Interests to prominent transnationalist individuals, certain US and foreign multinational corporations, and various foreign government interests, creating what has become a grave threat to national security, sovereignty, and the economic future of the America People.  QAnon refers to this dynamic as “America for Sale”.

This central theme is encapsulated in QAnon’s post #1746 on July 28,





On June 12, QAnon predicts a second coordinated wave of mainstream media attacks, in post #1849,

“MSM Attacks.

 [Round 2]…

Expect bigger push. “


In post #1822 from August 6, QAnon responds directly to the recent wave of media coverage,


Fake News collaborating and pushing knowingly false information?

Fake News ‘KNOWINGLY FALSE’ narrative pushes.

  1. POTUS colluded w/ Russia to win 2016 Presidential Election
  2. POTUS is puppet to PUTIN
  3. POTUS to harm irreparably relationships w/ our allies
  4. POTUS will collapse US economy
  5. POTUS will collapse US stock market
  6. POTUS will cause war w/ NK
  7. POTUS will cause war w/ Iran
  8. POTUS will destroy the world.
  9. On and on…….(knowingly false)

They would rather see NK peace negotiations fail (WAR!) than see POTUS resolve.
Scandalous media bias?
What are they hiding?
Think WL list of journalists who colluded w/ HRC/DNC (2016 Pres Election)…
You are witnessing a FULL PANIC ATTACK by the FAKE NEWS
They cannot contain or defeat what they do not understand.
Is any of this normal?
Think sealed indictments count.
Think resignations of CEOs.
Think resignations of Senators.
Think resignations of Congress.
Think termination of sr FBI…
Think termination of sr DOJ…
Attacks will only intensify.
Logical thinking.
Ask yourself a simple question – WHY????

From an objective perspective, given the unprecedented number of Congress and Senate seats suddenly vacated by members of both parties, combined with the abrupt resignations of hundreds of prominent corporate CEO’s, combined with the uncovering of what may prove to be historic corruption at the highest levels of the US Government, all occurring contemporaneously, is QAnon’s central theme truly farfetched?

For savvy media consumers, who have chosen to question the motives and veracity of the major media giants, the logical question is — why?  Why would a supposed conspiracy theory promulgated by an anonymous party on 8chan suddenly become such a high priority for such notable news agencies all at the same time?  This line of logic inevitably leads to the next question — which one of these two diametrically opposed narratives to believe?  In the words of QAnon, “The choice to know will ultimately be yours.”

via Ascending: Legacy Media Spotlight Propels QAnon Movement — The Gateway Pundit