Patriots4Liberty
  • Featured Content
  • April18th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    By now everyone is familiar with Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy’s refusal to take his 400 cattle off of lands controlled by the federal government to make way for the “endangered” desert tortoise. Unpaid grazing fees is the stated reason. But this highlights the real back story, which is our Constitution and an out of control federal government. At the same time, most conservatives have become disgusted with the Bush family and Jeb’s recent signal toward amnesty by declaring that when Mexicans violate our border laws, they do it “as an act of love.” “Have a heart” is the message. Jeb’s logic ought with more justification be applied to Cliven Bundy.

    Cliven Bundy’s family has operated that land from the late 19th century. Allowing him to continue his “family tradition” would be an act of love. How else will Bundy feed his family but by practicing the trade handed down from his forefathers? Let him stay. Quit harassing him. This would be an act of love.

    Bundy is trying to keep beef on the plates of the politicians who wish to run him out. What charity! What graciousness! At the same time Bundy wishes to keep cattle prices low enough for all of us to enjoy steak. It is an act of love to the American people for his cattle to graze Nevada lands. Where is that “charitable” government now?

    Bundy probably doesn’t have the $1 Million dollar grazing fees. Let the government extend to him the loving hand of forgiveness. Bundy is setting an example of love to all cowboys and cowgirls. Cowboys have love, too, Harry Reid.

     

    The Real Story

     

    Of all the commentators who have spoken on this issue, Nick Sorrentino gets it right. He wrote, “This is not about a rancher owing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) money. This is about a federal government which just assumed control of public land years ago…changing the rules and telling citizens to LUMP IT. It’s about a central authority passing regulations in Washington with little regard, indeed contempt for the little guy out in flyover country.”

    Our Constitution empowers the Congress to maintain complete jurisdiction over all lands that have been purchased within a state. This was to be done with the consent of the state legislatures. It was assumed that the several states would retain title to all lands within their boundaries which the Federal Government did not use for specific constitutional purposes—build forts, bases, magazines, federal buildings, etc.

    That Congress did NOT allow this to happen is a common theme of American history. When Ohio was admitted in 1803 the policy changed. The feds maintained control of all lands until they were sold to the general populace. But the most radical digression occurred in the 20th century when Congress eliminated the sale of lands in newly minted states. The feds retained ownership of major tracts of land, disallowing them to be settled by Americans. This shift in policy withdrew from settlement vast acreages in the west and the BLM was formed in 1946 to help manage them. Today, the federal government owns approximately 70% of the entire west, including almost 90% of the state of Nevada.

    With federal lands in the hands of our dictators in Washington, D.C. it became simply a matter of time until Bundy become the “last man standing” on ranches in Clark County, Nevada. It is time for the states to stand up to the federal government and demand the control of the properties which is theirs by constitutional right. That Bundy refuses to go exemplifies his love of the Constitution. A rare thing in the halls of Washington, D.C.

    Share
  • April18th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Use of the word “sin” is purposeful. It should cause our minds to reflect that the system of government under which we now live—pretty close to complete and utter socialism—is a violation of God’s eternal moral standards. Sin is a violation of God’s law (1 John 3:4; Rom. 4:15). This means the unchecked corruption we witness at the federal level is but a reflection of the system we have ignorantly adopted from at least the time of Franklin Roosevelt.

     

    Definitions

     

    Socialism involves three basic elements. First, at its root is the transfer of material benefits from some persons to others. The classic definition is simply the “state ownership of the means of production.” But it is helpful to recall that this is accomplished by means of gradually encroaching upon the liberties of business via laws and regulations. The National Association of Scholars (NAS) defines “social justice”—socialism in a new dress—as “Advocacy of more egalitarian access to income, through state-sponsored redistribution.” Obama is setting us up for more of this by his preachments of “income inequality.”

    Second, socialism demands massive government power. Max Eastman, an elitist American in Woodrow Wilson’s time who became infatuated with socialism and actually traveled to the Soviet Union to learn how to implement it, later recanted. His book, Lectures in the Failure of Socialism, contains this definition of socialism: “A state apparatus which plans and runs the business of the country must have the authority of a business executive. And that is the authority to tell all those active in the business where to go and what to do, and if they are insubordinate, put them out.” It is all about power. Continuity of control. This now is locked into place in America. Obama acts like an untouchable king.

    Third, the rationale for implementing socialism, if rationale is needed at the point of total control, is to aver that social problems such as murder, robbery, violence, etc. is due to social causes. Enter the professional class of Marxist college tutors. Young people are being taught that people act ugly because they are poor. Answer? Re-distribute the wealth of a nation in order to quell social ills. The premise, of course, does not happen to be true, for as circumspection as well as God’s Word shows, the issues of life are determined by the heart of man, not lack of or excess of funds. And this is why the preachers of today, if true to their calling from God, should be continually hammering against the ungodly system of socialism. Instead, what do we find? Pulpits have become complicit; ignorant of the nature of socialism and worse, the teaching of the Bible which they claim to uphold.

     

    Founding Fathers Constitutionally Barred Socialism

     

    The heart and soul of socialism, redistribution of wealth, was effectually barred and banned by the Constitution. That document is not so complex as portrayed by Bill O’Reilly, who thinks that because liberal judges argue about its complexities, we must wait to learn what it means when they pass edicts from their cathedral in Washington, D.C.

    Article 1, Section 8 explains that Congress is empowered to expend public money only provided that it benefits the general welfare of the whole people. Alexander Hamilton explained that “general welfare” means that the entire community of states is the ONLY legitimate end for which federal money can be spent. “The constitutional test of a right application must always be, whether it be for a purpose general or local.” In other words, taking resources from one segment of society and “giving” it to another (local expenditure) is off-limits.

    Thomas Jefferson said the same. This clause, said he, is not a grant of power to “spend” for the general welfare, but intended to LIMIT the power of taxation to matters that provided for the general welfare of the entire Union. In other words, federal taxes could not be levied for states, counties, cities or special interest groups.” Pretty plain. No such thing as re-distribution at any level is legal by the federal government.

    This is why, when in 1794 Congress floated the idea to give refugees from San Domingo who were relocating to Baltimore and Philadelphia $15,000 from the federal treasury, James Madison objected. “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

    For the same reason Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill. “I cannot find,” said he, “any authority in the Constitution for public charity.” He added that to approve the measure “would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.” And so it was until the progressive era when elected officials began disbursing to others that which did not belong to them.

     

    Socialism is Evil

     

    A better illustration cannot be found than that offered by columnist Walter Williams. He explains that if an elderly widow lived on your street who was unable to pay for the upkeep of her yard and unable to do it herself, what options has she to mow the lawn? She would be relying upon the charity of her neighbors who voluntarily would care for her lawn.

    Just here Big Government steps in and tells us that it will be charitable to her. How so? Government officials are certainly not going to do it themselves—witness the fraud by the current ruling class and the lack of charitable giving expressed on their tax returns. But through unmitigated and unconstitutional power they force YOU to mow her lawn for free. This is slavery.

    But a more subtle method is normally used. Though government does not force you to take your mower down the street to her yard and labor, it confiscates your wealth to give it to the widow unable to mow her own lawn. This is not only slavery, by definition, but theft of our monies. But this they call “compassion.” Graft and corruption it may be, but “compassion” it is not. This is the evil of socialism.

    Share
  • April2nd

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    As explained in the last, there are only two basic worldviews. Either the universe is the product of impersonal, undirected forces, or it is the product of a personal agent, God. The former is known as “naturalism.” Naturalism, or materialism is the doctrine that all reality has a material base. “Naturalists” believe that nature is “all there is” and it is mindless and purposeless.

    On the other hand, those who believe in God understand that the world has its base in an eternal personality who thinks, wills, acts and loves and transcends nature. What other results follow from the dominance of naturalism in our world?

    Third, Darwinism and clear logical thinking are opposite to one another. The theory of biological evolution purposefully blurs the distinction between observable science and philosophical claims that are made in the name of science.

    Philip Johnson (The Right Questions) illustrates this by noting that the scientific “establishment” vehemently rejected a Senate amendment to a 2001 education bill that read: “good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from the philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science…”

    That the scientific establishment, which is predominantly evolutionist, objected to this language does not speak well for them. Apparently, “education in biological evolution (Darwinism) must aim at keeping the students and the general public confused so they will continue to accept philosophy as science and not perceive that the scientific evidence is not consistent with the scientistic philosophy (naturalism) that the ruling metaphysicians of science want them to believe” (Johnson).

    Fourth, if naturalism is a true reflection of reality, then we live in a valueless world. If everything that exists is the result of natural causes only, and evolutionists insists that this is the case, then the arena of values and morals have evolved as well. From a scientific standpoint, morality—like religion—is a matter of subjective belief, not objective knowledge. All values therefore are a matter of personal preference and there is no value difference between the statements, “I like ice cream” and “I like to kill babies.” Neither of these statements can be shown, from science alone, to be grounded in any eternal or objective standard. They reflect mere personal tastes. As a matter of fact, if evolution is true, humans have no inherent quality that gives them a unique status above any other species and to murder an individual incurs no more guilt than stepping on a cockroach.

     

    Share
  • April2nd

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    There are only two basic worldviews. Either the universe is the product of impersonal, undirected forces, or it is the product of a personal agent, God. The former is known as “naturalism.” Naturalism, or materialism is the doctrine that all reality has a material base. “Naturalists” believe that nature is “all there is” and it is mindless and purposeless.

    On the other hand, those who believe in God understand that the world has its base in an eternal personality who thinks, wills, acts and loves and transcends nature. That naturalism is the dominant philosophy in current America goes without saying—the hegemony of naturalism.

    First, naturalism applied in the scientific realm spells evolution. The most widely used biology textbook in colleges is by Douglas Futuyma. Here is his definition of evolution: “By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of life superfluous.” Not only does naturalism in science eliminate God but as Futuyma goes on to explain, naturalism sets the stage for much of Western thought. One might also note that the theory of evolution is completely incompatible with belief in God. Or, if one believes in God, don’t you dare rely on Him to explain historical events.

    Second, naturalism is the “established religious philosophy” of modern times. Yet, it is sold to the American people as “science” via evolution. In other words, science itself, which relies upon the experimental method, does not establish evolution. Instead, evolution is grounded in religious philosophy. Futuyma said that evolution is “undirected and purposeless.” No scientific experiment revealed this. It is an assumption. And, this is quite revealing, seeing that “naturalism” is referred to by some as “methodological atheism.” This is why evolution actually implies atheism. William Provine, a prominent evolutionary biology professor at Cornell University, rightly insists that if evolution is true, there is no God. Atheism would have to be true. Sad it is that many religious people, evidently not fathoming the full implications of evolution, like to try to find middle ground between evolution and the Bible. They teach “Theistic Evolution.” This is a compromise that neither the Bible, nor evolution allows. (more later)

     

     

    Share
  • March14th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Pat Robertson of the 700 Club recently blasted Ken Ham over the age of the earth. He wants Christians to stop literally interpreting the Bible, especially when it comes to Moses’ inspired explanation recorded in Genesis about how the earth was created. Ham’s “young earth” view Robertson labeled as “nonsense” because it is supposedly based upon 17th century Bishop James Ussher’s calculations from biblical data that puts the creation week at 4,004 B.C.

    Robertson says that Bishop Ussher based his creation date on his “knowledge of the Bible, the ancient Persian, Greek, and Roman civilizations, astronomy, ancient calendars, and chronology.” “There’s no way possible,” declared Robertson, “let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

    Let’s examine it.

    Robertson’s compromises here are precisely why many leave the churches completely. The televangelist went on to say “We’ve got to be realistic that the dating of Bishop Ussher just doesn’t comport with anything that’s found in science, and you can’t just totally deny the geological formations that are out there.” In another statement Robertson said, “And you go back in time, you’ve got radiocarbon dating, you’ve got all these things, and you’ve got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas….and so there was a time that these giant reptiles were on the earth and it was before the time of the Bible.”

    Two very clearly identifiable errors are here in which Robertson manifests his ignorance. One, the findings of science—“you’ve got radiocarbon dating…” and two, the Bible—“so there was a time that these giant reptiles were on the earth and it was before the time of the Bible.”

    It is noteworthy first of all that the 700 Club leader defers to the supposed “findings of science” while excoriating Ussher’s computation of the chronologies of the biblical text. Robertson did not offer exactly where Ussher was mistaken in his computation, did he? How are we to count the genealogies? Where is the chronology of the Bible mistaken? What Bible study does Robertson offer that corrects Ussher?

    Given the fact that the Bible may indeed have compressed accounts in various texts and chronologies, it still does not allow for the insertion of billions of years, as Robertson says he believes. Pat Robertson does not offer one single sober interpretation of the texts of the Bible. He defers to “science,” wherein lies his faith: “Faith is the substance of radiocarbon dating, the evidence of theories yet unproven.”

    The entire scientific process of dating organic materials is based upon naturalistic assumptions. Radiometric dating is a technique that calibrates these ages by estimating the amount of decay of Carbon-14. The assumptions would include, for starters, that the same rate of decay that currently occurs has always occurred and that nothing has disturbed that process. Further, radiocarbon dating is not normally used to date matter reaching into what is considered to be millions of years old.

    Most disturbing, Robertson takes issue with the Bible. Moses wrote, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exodus 20:11). Essential to this clear passage is that God said everything that exists—all that is in heavens and the earth—was created during the creation week recorded in Genesis 1.  But Robertson believes that now fossilized creatures were “on the earth before the time of the Bible.”

    Again, Moses recognizes that the “creation week” was actually a WEEK and became a pattern for the Jewish work-week plus Sabbath day. Robertson apparently thinks he may take liberties with the Bible and count the creation “week” as eons of time. This relegating the Bible to a lesser status than the supposed findings of science—not Ham’s “young earth” view– is what is causing the younger generation to turn from Christianity altogether. At least they can see that if the Pat Robertson’s of the world can dispense with biblical data of the creation and treat it as some ancient parable, then the sober biblical admonishments to morality may similarly be disregarded.

    Share
  • March11th

     

    Bill Lockwood

    A fascinating article appears in the latest issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (March/April 2014) by Lawrence Mykytiuk entitled “Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible.” Focusing upon Old Testament characters from Egypt, Moab, Aram-Damascus, the Northern Kingdom of Israel and Southern Kingdom of Judah, Assyria, Babylonia and Persia, Mykytiuk has assembled a list from authentic inscriptions that have been discovered chiseled in stone.

    For the classification of “authentic” or “firm” identifications, Mykytiuk utilizes several criteria, including “only those instances where the Bible places the person and inscription places the person within about 50 years of each other.” Another criterion is that “the society or political entity must match. For example, both must be attributable to say, late seventh-century B.C.E. Judah.” In other words, the entire list is a very conservative count including only those inscriptions can be firmly trusted. Remarkably, even with those stringent standards, Mykytiuk identifies fifty characters named in the Old Testament that are corroborated by archaeology. Note the following.

    The entire scope of archaeological findings substantiates the Bible. Until 1993, for example, the personal name of “David” had never appeared in the archaeological record. References outside the Bible to King David were entirely absent. As a matter of course, therefore, many doubted David’s existence. David was considered by many scholars to be a mythical creation of the Bible writers. In 1993, however, the “Tel Dan” inscription was found in an excavation led by Avraham Biran which was an Aramaic victory stele commissioned by a non-Israelite king mentioning his victory over “the king of Israel” and the “House of David.” This is a ninth-century B.C. inscription on basalt stone dating a century after David lived. It is clear that David was remembered even by opposing nations as the founder of a dynasty.

    The same substantiation is true regarding Hezekiah. Sennacherib’s “prism” is a stone cylinder with six sides upon which the Assyrian king boasted of “shutting up Hezekiah like a bird in a cage.” Interestingly enough, according to God’s Word Sennacherib did not conquer Jerusalem, and neither does the monarch take credit for doing so on this prism. One can read of this episode in the biblical record at 2 Chronicles 32.

    The important point to be made here is that most modern scholars and archaeologists do not accept the Bible as the inspired word of God and due to that a priori assumption they continue to require confirmatory or supportive evidence from other fields. But the Bible, unlike other “holy” books composed by uninspired men such as the Quran or the Book of Mormon, is continually corroborated by the archaeological spade and historical investigation.

     

     

    Share
  • February6th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Bill Nye, who advertises himself as “The Science Guy,” debated creationist Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis before a massive audience estimated to have been up to 3 million viewers. The debate was one short evening occurring in Kentucky. Reviews have been mixed. Not wishing to critique the entire discussion here, there are a couple of observations regarding evolution that need to be logged.

     

    Bill Nye framed the discussion, as our modern culture does, as a battle between “science” and the “Bible,” repeatedly referring to himself as “reasonable” as opposed to creationist Ken Ham. A perfect illustration of the mis-framing of the issue along these lines was authored by a college English professor, John Crisp of Texas. Lamenting that “faith” in God might “significantly influence public policy”—that which all “enlightened” individuals loathe—he offered this self-anointed “reasonable proposition.”

     

    “Science is about understanding the natural world in strictly rational terms; religion is non-rational, and derives its meaning from revelation and faith. Science is a proper object of study in the public schools; religion is the domain of the church, the private school, and the human heart.”

     

    Note how the table is set. Goose-stepping to the same beat, Bill Nye simply repeats the cultural stereo-type in order to shut off all criticism of evolution and make evolution true by definition. Science is “reasonable.” Faith in God’s Word is thus, “non-reasonable.” In reality, the general theory of evolution is a philosophical bias that routinely is taught under the umbrella of science and biblical faith is based upon historical evidence. Evolution is naturalistic in its assumptions and materialistic in its outcomes because naturalism is all that is fed into the equation.

     

    To see the philosophical bias of evolution, listen to what Michael Schulson wrote in The Daily Beast regarding the debate. Reviewing what Ham had to say, he criticized Ham’s reference to “historical science.” Then Schulson added, “We can use evidence from the present to extrapolate about the past.”

     

    That’s exactly the point. “Extrapolate” they do quite well. But that isn’t science is it? To extrapolate means that we take “variables from a known range” (current scientific discovery) and “estimate in an unknown range (the past)” “from which the estimated value is assumed to follow.” That is the nature of EXTRAPOLATION, right out of the dictionary. It is an assumption, first to last.

     

    To say that evolution is “rational” when in point of fact it is a dogmatic speculation that rests on “extrapolation” is to beg the question. On the other hand, to classify religion of historical biblical data as “non-rational” by definition is to taint the discussion before it begins. Thus, Bill Nye; the reason creationists wish to have creationist ideas in the classroom is because they recognize that evolution is a philosophy of origins in which present-day data has been extrapolated (assumed) to have occurred in the past.

    Share
  • February4th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Atheism holds that life is nothing more than “matter in motion.” Molecules and the physical laws that affect them are the only realities that exist. Mary Poplin, professor of education at Claremont Graduate University in California, has recently published her new book entitled, Is Reality Secular? Testing the Assumptions of Four Global Worldviews, in which she cross-examines with incisive logic four differing world-views, including the dominant philosophy today: material naturalism. She quotes materialist-naturalist Edward O. Wilson’s The Social Conquest of the Earth in which he posits that both God and free will are illusions of the brain. One might call this the Biology of Belief.

    Wilson’s words are these: “We cannot escape the question of free will, which some philosophers still argue sets us apart. It is a product of the subconscious decision-making center of the brain that gives the cerebral cortex the illusion of independent action.”

    Think about the above for a moment. Free will is an illusion, originating in the cerebral cortex of the brain. God is an illusion. Religious persuasion is only a chemical function, per Wilson. To the material naturalist, chemistry is all that spurs one’s beliefs.

    To what does this amount? In an effort to throw out God, the materialist jettisons his/her own rational capacity. Logical thinking and freedom of choice are mental mirages.

    No Free Will?

     

    Lack of free will is the natural conclusion to the materialist worldview. We think we have “free will” and that we have “independent” thinking. But this is merely an “illusion,” asserts Wilson.  If so, what become of instructing? Instruction itself is an exercise in futility. To instruct another person, or to impart particular concepts, assumes that those ideas in and of themselves have the ability to change one’s thinking and behavior.

    Again, why did Edward O. Wilson author his book? His theory says that his own “ideas,” including the one that says that free will is an “illusion,” is itself an illusion, and is merely a chemical function. He is saying that is idea about “free will” contains no rational validity. Wilson has not “learned” it by independent study—nor can anyone reading his sentences be influenced one way or another. To change one’s mind, just pour in the necessary chemicals. There is no such thing as “teaching,” Mr. Wilson.

    In other words, if belief is explained solely by biology, then so also unbelief.  Isn’t it sad, that in an effort to eliminate God, atheists deny the very concept of rational thinking?

    No God?

     

    This brings another consideration. If belief in God is the sole result of chemical reactions in my brain then why mock my Christianity? Why ridicule those of us who cannot help but believing what we believe? One cannot control what biological reactions occur in his/her genetic makeup, whether it result in “belief in God” or “unbelief in God.” It is neither credit-worthy nor condemnatory.

    Yet, Richard Dawkins, who has made a fairly decent living by railing against Christianity, says such incongruent things such as: “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” Why, Mr. Dawkins, don’t you know that “teaching” and “instruction” itself is an “illusion” given your worldview? To change minds, one need not write books, but stir in the proper physical formulas.

    Once more, why would “Satisfaction with not understanding the world” be more culpable than “Understanding the world?” In fact, “satisfaction” has nothing to do with it, unless a soothing spirit that overcomes one as proper chemicals squirt through the cerebral cortex is what Dawkins has in mind. In which case, his physical reaction is no more praiseworthy than mine. All is mere chemical reaction in the cerebral cortex.

    Ironically, this Dawkins “illusion” about what satisfies people is in his The God Delusion. How appropriate.

    Share
  • January27th

     

    Patriot 1

      

    Sports columnist Christine Brennan of USA Today lauded President Obama’s poking his nose into Russia’s anti-gay laws as a “stroke of genius.” Referring to the president’s decision to send a delegation to the Sochi, Russia Olympics that includes avowed homosexuals such as Billie Jean King, Caitlin Cahow and Brian Boitano, Brennan thinks this will underscore an outstanding inclusive message to the world. But the Russian paper Pravda gets it right. It is evidence that America is showing “clear signs of moral degeneration.” Pretty sad that Pravda needs to teach America the truth. Several things need to be noted.

     

    First, Obama, in being the first president to openly embrace the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community, is in reality the first openly anti-Christian president. Not only is homosexuality a sin against Almighty God, but contemplate the Russian law he is high-handedly opposing. Last summer Russia introduced legal safeguards that forbade disseminating homosexual propaganda to minors. For that the “world community” is supposedly in an outrage and our own president wishes to impose his views upon Russia. So much for tolerant liberals. And what might be Obama’s views? Apparently that homosexual propaganda ought to be disseminated to minors. That anyone calling him/herself a Christian in America would support this Nero of a dictator occupying the White House is beyond imagination.

     

    Second, the ‘human rights’ issue is subterfuge for international meddling. Obama pretends to stand for “human rights” in sending his Sachow delegation. But as Justinas Valutis explains in Pravda, “A quick peep in recent history will also show that the whole ‘human (gay) rights’ thing is only a mask that hides faces, deformed by chronic lying. In 2008, nobody dared to elevate the rights issue to the level that would lead to boycott the Summer Olympic Games in Beijing. By contrast, when it comes to basic freedoms of a human being, modern Russia looks like a guardian angel when compare to the reputation of the People’s Republic of China.” Just who has a better record on human rights I am not able to say, but Valutis has a point.

    One does not need to make a lengthy assessment of human rights records of various countries to see that America has a brazen, emboldened, hypocritical leader in Washington, D.C. In 2009 Bibles sent to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan by Americans were collected on orders of the president. They were summarily burned. “It might be perceived that the U.S. Government or the U.S. Military was trying to convert Muslims,” explained Lt. Col. Mark Wright. The Obama Defense Department scurried to erase any  impression that one of our troops might try to influence a Muslim for Christ.

    We want other nations to enjoy “self-determination,” according to our commander-in-chief. Especially if that includes persecuting or imprisoning Christians, as in many Muslim nations. But the president himself said that “he had no patience” with a foreign nation which did not support sodomy or does not allow the LGBT community to recruit from amongst the youth.

    Add to that the recent directive from the Department of Defense. Obama’s military installations are to “promote diversity” and enhance “cross cultural awareness” by celebrating not only Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Birthday and Holocaust Memorials, but to reserve June 2014 as national gay “pride” month. 

    Third, the careful observer might have also noted that the Russian law Obama opposes seeks to protect Russian young people—minors—from the aggressive onslaught of the homosexual agenda. The law does not imprison homosexuals or torture them. It simply curtails their ability to recruit from among the impressionable youth. We can’t have this, says Obama. And this from a man who supposedly, only a few years ago, agreed that homosexuality was wrong and ought not be supported by law. Believe it? Who can? As in every area of Obama’s persona, his earlier “objections” to homosexual marriage was itself a carefully crafted lie to deceive the simple-minded. Now our foreign policy is hedonism.

     

    Share
  • January24th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    “It is highly improper,” observed the late Dr. Harry Rimmer, “to refer to Christianity as ‘one of the world’s great religions.’ There are many great world religions, of which Christianity is certainly not one.” What reason does Rimmer give? “A ‘religion’ consists of man’s systematized thinking concerning God, and is the result of humanity’s attempts to approach God, and to find Him out for their own satisfaction.” On the other hand, “Christianity is God’s search for man. The revelation of Jesus Christ owes nothing to human wisdom or the thinking of fallible man. It is God in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. Far from being merely a great world religion, Christianity is the only sure method of salvation which God has established for the redemption of mankind” (The New Testament and Laws of Evidence).

     

    The New Testament asserts to be a revelation from God to man (2 Tim. 3:16,17). The truthfulness of this claim is a question of its credibility. This has to do with the “trustworthiness” of the documents and their reliability. Akin to this is the concept of “veracity” which includes the honesty of the Bible as well as its accuracy and alignment with truth. Unlike other religions practiced by man, the supreme strength of Christianity is “found in a set of historic documents called the New Testament, which are the foundation and evidences of the Christian faith.”

     

    Judaizing Teachers

     

    In the first century the doctrines of Jewish teachers plagued the churches which spread their calumnies far and wide, especially invading congregations established by the Apostle Paul. They attacked his own credibility as a true apostle of Jesus Christ, and ultimately the bedrock truth upon which the Christian system is built, the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

     

    These assaults no doubt caused much uneasiness of mind to Paul as well as to the rest of the faithful in that age. Those evil workers (Phil. 3:2) occasioned much pain to the faithful of that age. However, it is important to keep this in mind. These evils have proved of no small worth and service to the church throughout the ages. Why? Because the apostle was constrained not only to relate the proofs of his apostleship by which he gives to us a full assurance of his calling by the Lord, but also shows us the ultimate bedrock truth upon which Christianity is built, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This event was historic reality, not the whimsical dreams of man. Christ’s body was resuscitated to life and emerged from the rocky tomb. Consider the historical value which one finds in Paul’s letters.

     

    Letters

     

    First, references which Paul makes to this miraculous event (resurrection) are mostly incidental allusions. For example, in Romans 14:6-9, the apostle is regulating a practice of eating certain kinds of food. As he passes by the way he comments “for to this end Christ died and rose again.” Or in a passage in which he is expounding on the purpose of his own suffering, (2 Cor. 4:7ff) he comments, “always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus” (v. 10). As an off-handed comment he adds, “knowing that he that raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise us up also with Jesus” (v. 14).

     

    Again, when seeking to persuade Roman Christians to live godly lives, Paul appeals to the fact that in baptism they have “put to death” the old man of sin. “Know ye not that as many of you as have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his death?” Then what? “That like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the father, so we also must walk in newness of life.”

     

    In other words, Paul does not set forward, but in one passage (1 Cor. 15) to prove the resurrection of Christ. Instead, what we find are incidental statements or simply allusions to this central tenet. What does this show? Real history. “Respecting the value of the original letters, as far as they contain allusions to contemporaneous events, and especially when these writers were active agents in them … The writer in such cases is almost invariably off his guard, and we thus get at the real facts, which in formal histories too frequently receive a coloring in conformity with the prejudices of the historian” (C.A. Row, A Manual of Christian Evidences, 147).

     

    Row continues. “The presence, in these epistles [Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians] of a large number of incidental allusions imparts to them a value as materials for history, such as is possessed by few similar documents. Their incidental form possesses this peculiar advantage. They prove not only that the writer was firmly persuaded of the truth of the facts to which he refers, but also that those to whom he writes entertained a similar opinion” (147).

     

    Second, the value of this testimony is even further heightened, if that be possible, by the fact that the churches to which Paul wrote were not filled only with devoted friends, but a number of determined opponents. Formidable opposition groups gripped the Galatian and Corinthian churches. These enemies, who denied Paul’s authority in Christ, persuaded many persons which in turn compelled the great apostle to the Gentiles to give a defense of his gospel. Interestingly, the letters Paul wrote to answer these critics “were intended to be read in the presence of the very persons who deny St. Paul’s apostolic commission, whom he denounces in the strongest terms, and whom he again and again challenges to come forward and refute his positions.” (Row, 148).

     

    This alone shows that as Paul alludes to the central facts of Christianity, “that their truth must have been accepted alike by the apostle and by his opponents; for to have alluded in this manner to facts which he knew that those to whom he was writing were ignorant of, or did not believe in, or the truth of which he was aware that his opponents would call in question, would, in a controversy of this kind, have involved an act of folly which is simply incredible. This peculiar feature, therefore, affords such a guarantee that the facts alluded to were accepted as true, both by the writer and his correspondents, as is probably furnished by no other writings in existence” (149).

     

    This demonstrates that there was a substantial body of certain accepted historical facts, not the least of which was the resurrection of Jesus Christ, accepted by friend and foe alike!

    Share
This site is protected by WP-CopyRightPro