So we evangelicals cannot criticise the Evangelicals for Harris campaign while overlooking Trump’s evil. Voting for the lesser evil in Trump can be a righteous act, but it’s unrighteous to ignore the evil, even if it’s lesser than Kamala Harris’ greater evil. Donald Trump’s position on abortion is deplorable and Kamala Harris’ position is demonic. Despite his great track record on abortion when he was president, Trump isn’t campaigning against abortion. Kamala Harris, however, is campaigning for abortion.

The evangelicals for Harris campaign is a contradiction in terms. “Evangelicals for Harris” is as absurd as Jews for Pharaoh, Christians for Emperor Nero, or evangelicals for Satan.
There is no such thing as “Evangelicals for Harris.” If you’re voting for Kamala Harris, you are not an evangelical. Everyone knows this, including Evangelicals for Harris.
Earlier this week Evangelicals for Harris held a Zoom meeting hosted by Ekemini Uwan, an anti-white and pro-abortion “public theologian” who has said:
“Lets be honest, evangelical really means white Christians. The term has always been problematic because it is narrow in that sense.”
“I don’t classify as an evangelical because it’s tightly bound to whiteness.”
“When I see ‘evangelical’ I know they are not talking about me or my kinsmen.”
“I’ve never considered myself an evangelical.”
So why would a person who doesn’t consider herself an evangelical host a meeting for a campaign called Evangelicals for Harris? 
As Megan Basham says in her bestselling book, Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda, leftists know the best way to lure evangelical voters away from conservatism is to fund evangelical leaders who will frame leftist policies as Biblical precepts.
In the book, Basham writes:
“[in 2012, a left-wing cause named Atlantic Philanthropies] issued a report on its failing efforts to break down opposition to gay marriage in Ireland…the report highlighted the resistance of Ireland’s devout Catholics and Protestants. ‘Organized religion is at the heart of the LGBTI oppression and needs to be deconstructed,’ the authors wrote. But they quickly identified the roadblock they would face in achieving the aim: ‘How can one deconstruct an institution that provides hope and comfort to millions of desperate people?’ Rather than go on opposing churches, the gay lobby would need to co-opt them. “An engagement needs to come from groups within the churches,” the report advised. “LGBTI organizations need to appropriate Christian values for a progressive rights agenda.”
This is why Evangelicals for Harris exists. This is why they are encouraging people who hate evangelicalism to pose as evangelicals.
Read More
Related Posts:

When the Lord Jesus Christ does a saving work in the life of a sinner, he or she is not only concerned with being free of guilt in the presence of God; but also being holy in the presence of God. The power of sin is broken and one is able to be well….The power of sin is broken and we are able to look to Christ and say, “Be of sin the double cure; save from wrath and make me pure!”

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.Romans 8:4
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,Let me hide myself in Thee;Let the water and the blood,From Thy wounded side which flowed,Be of sin the double cure,Save from wrath and make me pure….
As Christ’s secured salvation for sinners, he freed us from the wrath of God; freed us from sin and death; condemned sin; and after the Spirit, fulfilled the righteousness of the law in us. What does Romans 8:4 mean by fulfilled in us? Thomas Manton in his exposition of Romans 8 raises the question concerning the words, “in us.” He asks, “How is this to be understood? Of justification or of sanctification?” (Manton’s Works, 11.430.)
Through the grammar of “for” versus “in,” Manton begins with demonstrating that the words are unable to be understood as related to justification. He says, “The words will not bear it [as justification], for the apostle does not say that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled for, but fulfilled in us.” (Ibid.) This is a very important distinction as Manton considers what this fulfillment looks like in the life of the Christian. Surely, the Apostle Paul, according to Manton, meant that Christ’s work was not only a justifying work, but a sanctifying work: “Christ came not only to redeem us from wrath, but to renew and sanctify us.” (Ibid, 11.431.)
Before giving his readers four biblical reasons for this qualification, Manton tells them that the sanctification of the Christian is the “constant drift and tenor of the Scriptures.” Manton, like a skilled roper, strings together several texts from the Scripture to show that this was always God’s intentions in the life of the Christian: “And you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21.) “…God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.” (Acts 3:26.) “Him God has exalted to His right hand…to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 5:31.)  “And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin.” (I John 3:5.) Each of these show that the constant drift and tenor of the Word of God is that Jesus would provide the double cure of saving from wrath and making pure.
From the tenor and drift, Manton then turned his attention to the fact that from the Scriptures, this fulfillment of the law in us has to be sanctification. He says, “It must needs be so.” (Manton’s Works, 11.432.) Manton gave four reasons for this.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by R.C. Sproul |
Friday, April 5, 2024
When on the cross, not only was the Father’s justice satisfied by the atoning work of the Son, but in bearing our sins the Lamb of God removed our sins from us as far as the east is from the west. He did it by being cursed. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’” (Gal. 3:13).

One image, one aspect, of the atonement has receded in our day almost into obscurity. We have been made aware of present-day attempts to preach a more gentle and kind gospel. In our effort to communicate the work of Christ more kindly we flee from any mention of a curse inflicted by God upon His Son. We shrink in horror from the words of the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 53) that describe the ministry of the Suffering Servant of Israel and tells us that it pleased the Lord to bruise Him. Can you take that in? Somehow the Father took pleasure in bruising the Son when He set before Him that awful cup of divine wrath. How could the Father be pleased by bruising His Son were it not for His eternal purpose through that bruising to restore us as His children?
But there is the curse motif that seems utterly foreign to us, particularly in this time in history. When we speak today of the idea of curse, what do we think of? We think perhaps of a voodoo witch doctor that places pins in a doll made to replicate his enemy. We think of an occultist who is involved in witchcraft, putting spells and hexes upon people. The very word curse in our culture suggests some kind of superstition, but in biblical categories there is nothing superstitious about it.
The Hebrew Benediction
If you really want to understand what it meant to a Jew to be cursed, I think the simplest way is to look at the famous Hebrew benediction in the Old Testament, one which clergy often use as the concluding benediction in a church service:
The Lord bless you and keep you;the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace. (Num. 6:24–26)
The structure of that famous benediction follows a common Hebrew poetic form known as parallelism. There are various types of parallelism in Hebrew literature.
Read More
Related Posts: