Church in the U.S. Capitol
David Barton – Originally published 11/10/2005
Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War. Below is a brief history of the Capitol’s use as a church, and some of the prominent individuals who attended services there.
The cornerstone of the Capitol was laid by President George Washington in 1793., but it was not until the end of 1800 that Congress actually moved into the building. According to the congressional records for late November of 1800, Congress spent the first few weeks organizing the Capitol rooms, committees, locations, etc. Then, on December 4, 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building. 1
The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Theodore Sedgwick, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson’s approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President.
Significantly, the Capitol building had been used as a church even for years before it was occupied by Congress. The cornerstone for the Capitol had been laid on September 18, 1793; two years later while still under construction, the July 2, 1795, Federal Orrery newspaper of Boston reported:
City of Washington, June 19. It is with much pleasure that we discover the rising consequence of our infant city. Public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o’clock by the Reverend Mr. Ralph. 2
The reason for the original use of the Capitol as a church might initially be explained by the fact that there were no churches in the city at that time. Even a decade later in 1803, U. S. Senator John Quincy Adams confirmed: “There is no church of any denomination in this city.” 3 The absence of churches in Washington eventually changed, however. As one Washington citizen reported: “For several years after the seat of government was fixed at Washington, there were but two small [wooden] churches. . . . Now, in 1837 there are 22 churches of brick or stone.” 4 Yet, even after churches began proliferating across the city, religious services still continued at the Capitol until well after the Civil War and Reconstruction.
Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President 5 and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson’s friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. 6 Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor.
U. S. Rep. Manasseh Cutler, who also attended church at the Capitol, recorded in his own diary that “He [Jefferson] and his family have constantly attended public worship in the Hall.” 7 Mary Bayard Smith, another attendee at the Capitol services, confirmed: “Mr. Jefferson, during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant.” 8 She noted that Jefferson even had a designated seat at the Capitol church: “The seat he chose the first Sabbath, and the adjoining one (which his private secretary occupied), were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary.” 9 Jefferson was so committed to those services that he would not even allow inclement weather to dissuade him; as Rep. Cutler noted: “It was very rainy, but his [Jefferson's] ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall.” 10 Other diary entries confirm Jefferson’s attendance in spite of bad weather. 11
In addition to Mary Bayard Smith and Congressman Manasseh Cutler, others kept diaries of the weekly Capitol church services “” including Congressman Abijah Bigelow and statesman John Quincy Adams. (Adams served in Washington first as a Senator, then a President, and then as a Representative; and his extensive diaries describe the numerous church services he attended at the Capitol across a span of decades.)
Typical of Adams’ diary entries while a U.S. Senator under President Jefferson were these:
Attended public service at the Capitol where Mr. Rattoon, an Episcopalian clergyman from Baltimore, preached a sermon. 12
[R]eligious service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury. 13
Jefferson was not the only President to attend church at the Capitol. His successor, James Madison, also attended church at the Capitol. 14 However, there was a difference in the way the two arrived for services. Observers noted that Jefferson arrived at church on horseback 15 (it was 1.6 miles from the White House to the Capitol). However, Madison arrived for church in a coach and four. In fact, British diplomat Augustus Foster, who attended services at the Capitol, gave an eloquent description of President Madison arriving at the Capitol for church in a carriage drawn by four white horses.
From Jefferson through Abraham Lincoln, many presidents attended church at the Capitol; and it was common practice for Members of Congress to attend those services. For example, in his diary entry of January 9, 1803, Congressman Cutler noted: “Attended in the morning at the Capitol. . . . Very full assembly. Many of the Members present.” 16 The church was often full “so crowded, in fact, one attendee reported that since “the floor of the House offered insufficient space, the platform behind the Speaker’s chair, and every spot where a chair could be wedged in” was filled. 17 U. S. Representative John Quincy Adams (although noting that occasionally the “House was full, but not crowded” 18) also commented numerous times on the overly-crowded conditions at the Capitol church. In his diary entry for February 28, 1841, he noted: “I rode with my wife, Elizabeth C. Adams, and Mary, to the Capitol, where the Hall of the House of Representatives was so excessively crowded that it was with extreme difficulty that we were enabled to obtain seats.” 19 Why did so many Members attend Divine service in the Hall of the House? Adams explained why he attended: “I consider it as one of my public duties- as a representative of the people- to give my attendance every Sunday morning when Divine service is performed in the Hall.” 20
Interestingly, the Marine Band participated in the early Capitol church services. According to Margaret Bayard Smith, who regularly attended services at the Capitol, the band, clad in their scarlet uniforms, made a “dazzling appearance” as they played from the gallery, providing instrumental accompaniment for the singing. 21 The band, however, seemed too ostentatious for the services and “the attendance of the marine-band was soon discontinued.” 22
From 1800 to 1801, the services were held in the north wing; from 1801 to 1804, they were held in the “oven” in the south wing, and then from 1804 to 1807, they were again held in the north wing. From 1807 to 1857, services were held in what is now Statuary Hall. By 1857 when the House moved into its new home in the extension, some 2,000 persons a week were attending services in the Hall of the House. 23 Significantly, even though the U. S. Congress began meeting in the extension on Wednesday, December 16, 1857, the first official use of the House Chamber had occurred three days earlier, when “on December 13, 1857, the Rev. Dr. George Cummins preached before a crowd of 2,000 worshipers in the first public use of the chamber. Soon thereafter, the committee recommended that the House convene in the new Hall on Wednesday, December 16, 1857.” 24 However, regardless of the part of the building in which the church met, the rostrum of the Speaker of the House was used as the preacher’s pulpit; and Congress purchased the hymnals used in the service.
The church services in the Hall of the House were interdenominational, overseen by the chaplains appointed by the House and Senate; sermons were preached by the chaplains on a rotating basis, or by visiting ministers approved by the Speaker of the House. As Margaret Bayard Smith, confirmed: “Not only the chaplains, but the most distinguished clergymen who visited the city, preached in the Capitol” 25 and “clergymen, who during the session of Congress visited the city, were invited by the chaplains to preach.” 26
In addition to the non-denominational service held in the Hall of the House, several individual churches (such as Capitol Hill Presbyterian, the Unitarian Church of Washington, First Congregational Church, First Presbyterian Church, etc.) met in the Capitol each week for their own services; there could be up to four different church services at the Capitol each Sunday.
IN 1867, OVER 2,000 PER WEEK ATTENDED CHURCH SERVICES AT THE CAPITOL
The Library of Congress provides an account of one of those churches that met weekly at the Capitol: “Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 Chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime, the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services- ˜at the Hall of Representatives’ where- ˜the audience is the largest in town. . . . nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath’ for services, making the congregation in the House the ˜largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States.’ The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868.” 27
With so many services occurring, the Hall of the House was not the only location in the Capitol where church services were conducted. John Quincy Adams, in his February 2, 1806, diary entry, describes an overflow service held in the Supreme Court Chamber, 28 and Congressman Manasseh Cutler describes a similar service in 1804. 29 (At that time, the Supreme Court Chamber was located on the first floor of the Capitol.) Services were also held in the Senate Chamber as well as on the first floor of the south wing.
Church In The Capitol Milestones
* 1806. On January 12, 1806, Dorothy Ripley (1767-1832) became the first woman to preach before the House. One female attendee had noted: “Preachers of every sect and denomination of Christians were there admitted- Catholics, Unitarians, Quakers, with every intervening diversity of sect. Even women were allowed to display their pulpit eloquence in this national Hall.” 30 In attendance at that service were President Thomas Jefferson and Vice President Aaron Burr. Ripley conducted the lengthy service in a fervent, evangelical, camp-meeting style.
* 1826. On January 8, 1826, Bishop John England (1786-1842) of Charleston, South Carolina (Bishop over North and South Carolina and Georgia) became the first Catholic to preach in the House of Representatives. Of that service, President John Quincy Adams (a regular attendee of church services in the Capitol) noted: Walked to the Capitol and heard the Bishop of Charleston, [John] England -” an Irishman. He read a few prayers and then delivered an extemporaneous discourse of nearly two hours’ duration. . . . He closed by reading an admirable prayer. He came and spoke to me after the service and said he would call and take leave of me tomorrow. The house was overflowing, and it was with great difficulty that I obtained a seat. 31
* 1827. In January 1827, Harriet Livermore (1788-1868) became the second woman to preach in the House of Representatives. (Three of her immediate family members: ” her father, grandfather, and uncle” had been Members of Congress. Her grandfather, Samuel Livermore, was a Member of the first federal Congress and a framer of the Bill of Rights; her uncle was a Member under Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison; her father was a Member under President James Monroe.) The service in which she preached was not only attended by President John Quincy Adams but was also filled with Members of Congress as well as the inquisitive from the city. As Margaret Bayard Smith noted, “curiosity rather than piety attracted throngs on such occasions.” 32 Livermore spoke for an hour and a half, resulting in mixed reactions; some praised her and were even moved to tears by her preaching, some dismissed her. Harriet Livermore preached in the Capitol on four different occasions, each attended by a different President.
* 1865. On February 12, 1865, Henry Highland Garnet (1815- 1882) became the first African American to speak in Congress. Two weeks earlier, on January 31, 1865, Congress had passed the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, and Garnet was invited to preach a sermon in Congress to commemorate that event. In his sermon, Garnet described his beginnings: ‘I was born among the cherished institutions of slavery. My earliest recollections of parents, friends, and the home of my childhood are clouded with its wrongs. The first sight that met my eyes was my Christian mother enslaved.” 33 His family escaped to the North; he became a minister, abolitionist, temperance leader, and political activist. He recruited black regiments during the Civil War and served as chaplain to the black troops of New York. In 1864, he became the pastor of the Fifteenth Street Presbyterian Church in Washington, D. C. (where he served at the time of this sermon). He later became president of Avery College and was made Minister to Liberia by President Ulysses S. Grant.
(For more information on this topic please see “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic: Religion and the Federal Government (Part 2)” on the Library of Congress website)
NOTES
[1] Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), p. 797, Sixth Congress, December 4, 1800.
[2] Federal Orrery, Boston, July 2, 1795, p. 2.
[3] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Company, 1874), Vol. I, p. 268, October 30, 1803.
[4] Mrs. Samuel Harrison Smith (Margaret Bayard), The First Forty Years of Washington Society, Galliard Hunt, editor (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906), p. 16.
[5] Bishop Claggett’s (Episcopal Bishop of Maryland) letter of February 18, 1801, reveals that, as vice- President, Jefferson went to church services in the House. Available in the Maryland Diocesan Archives.
[6] William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.
[7] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 12, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 113).
[8] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
[9] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
[10] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 114).
[11] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 114, December 26, 1802.
[12] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 268, October 30, 1803.
[13] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 265, October 23, 1803.
[14] Abijah Bigelow to Hannah Bigleow, December 28, 1812. “Letters of Abijah Bigleow, Member of Congress, to his Wife,” Proceedings, 1810-1815, American Antiquarian Society (1930), p. 168.
[15] See, for example, Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, from a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803.
[16] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 116, January 9, 1803.
[17] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14.
[18] See, for example, John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. VII, pp. 437-438, February 17, 1828; Vol. XI, pp. 160-161, May 22, 1842; and others.
[19] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. X, p. 434, February 28, 1841.
[20] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. XI, p. 169, June 5, 1842.
[21] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14.
[22] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 16.
[23] James Hutson (Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress), Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1998), p. 91.
[24] William C. Allen (Architectural Historian of the Capitol), A History of the United States Capitol, A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 271.
[25] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14.
[26] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
[27] Fundraising brochure, Charles B. Boynton. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1867, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress; available at Library of Congress at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.
[28] Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, p. 90.
[29] From the Library of Congress, at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.
[30] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
[31] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. VII, p. 102, January 8, 1826.
[32] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
[33] Henry Highland Garnet, Memorial Discourse (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1865), p. 73.
(Reprinted with permission from Wallbuilders.com)
- The Righter Report
Justification by Faith – How believers are declared righteous by God
by Pete Righter
How are people declared righteous and saved by God? Is it by faith, or by works? The answer from the Bible is clear. But first we have to understand what justification is:
Justification: “1: the act, process, or state of being justified by God; 2. the act or an instance of justifying.” (Websters Dictionary)
Justification: “To justify or make just, by which sanctification is included under justification; to set right; correct a wrong thing done; to deem right or approve. Justification is, in Pauline language, synonymous with reconciliation. God is not imputing to men their trespasses, but declaring them righteous. The means (of justification) is the vicarious expiatory death of Jesus Christ. The sole condition is faith … in Jesus Christ.” (Hastings Bible Dictionary)
Justification: “To prove or show to be just; to vindicate as right; to declare free from guilt or blame; to absolve, to clear; to pardon or clear from guilt; to acquit; declare righteous; pronounce sentence of acceptance.”
Bible scholar Kevin J. Conner goes on to quote J.R. Gregory (“The Theological Student”), who defines justification as, ‘That act of God by which He accepts as righteous the penitent sinner who believes on Christ for salvation.”
With the above definitions and quotes as our starting point, we can now delve into one of the most dynamic and unselfish works in the history of creation – the work of God / Jesus Christ, who became our righteousness because we had none of our own. Conner explains it this way:
“When Adam sinned, all that he was and all that he did was ‘imputed’ to the whole, unborn human race. Sin left a debit on the books (Genesis 3:1-16; 2:17; Romans 5:12; 6:23). In Adam all sinned, and all died, spiritually and physically (I Corinthians 15:22). When Christ died on Calvary, the sin of Adam and the whole human race was ‘imputed,’ or put to Christs’ account. And because God imputed our sin to Christ, He suffered our penalty, which was death. All our liabilities were transferred to Him….(and) Christ’s righteousness was ‘imputed’ to us. His righteousness is credited to us, put to our account (Psalm 32:8; Romans 4:8). Justification pronounces the sinner legally innocent, freeing him from condemnation.”
Romans chapters 3-4 contain the magnificent statements of justification for those who place their faith in Jesus Christ. Romans 3:21-22 states:
“But now a righteousness from God, apart from (observing) the
law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets
testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in
Jesus Christ to all who believe.”
A few sentences later, Paul declares, “For we maintain that a man is justified (righteous in the eyes of God) by faith apart from observing the law.” (Romans 3:28)
In Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem makes the point that, “the word ‘justify’ in the Bible indicates that justification is a legal declaration by God. Paul says, “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is to condemn?” (Romans 8:33-34). Grudem continues, “In God’s legal declaration of justification, He specifically declares that we are just in His sight. This (legal) declaration involves two aspects. First, it means that we have no penalty to pay for sin, including past, present, and future sins. The second part of justification is that God must declare us not to be merely natural in His sight but actually to be righteous in His sight. In fact, He must declare us to have the merits of perfect righteousness before Him.” (Grudem 724-25)
When considering the implications of legal declarations, we have to acknowledge that there is a substantial body of judicial law which was given to us by God. I’m speaking, of course, not only of the Ten Commandments, which comprises the moral law, but also the civil, dietary, and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament. This ‘weighty’ and seemingly inflexible array of commandments can surely be viewed as a burdensome yoke of oppression for the common man. In Old and even New Testament times, man sometimes considered his salvation as being inexorably linked to his ‘keeping’ of the law. To the degree that he kept the Lord’s rules and regulations, that was the degree to which he calculated his chances of salvation. Yet the keeping of the law TO EARN SALVATION was and is an exercise in futility. In Galatians 3:10-11, Paul addresses this contentious issue:
“All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is
written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do every-
thing written in the Book of the Law.’ Clearly, no one is justified
before God by the law, because, ‘The righteous will live by
faith.”
The law was powerless to justify anyone righteous in the eyes of God for the simple reason that no mortal human was able to keep the law.
“There is no one righteous, not even one…no one who seeks God.
There is no one who does good, not even one.” (Romans 3:10-11)“I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he
is obligated to obey the whole law.” (Galatians 5:3)
One might sweat out an entire lifetime trying to keep only one of God’s laws, much less all of them. No, keeping the law was not the way to justification.
The law has four main purposes:
1. It shows us the moral character of God
2. It serves as a tutor to lead us to Christ, by defining what sin is.
3. It is a guide for Christian living.
4. Knowing the law can keep us from suffering the adverse consequences of sin.
ATTEMPTS AT SELF- JUSTIFICATION IN SCRIPTURE
It seems clear from scripture that there are only two possible sources of obtaining justification: from one’s own self, or from an outside source (God). Mark chapter 10 gives us an illustration of one man’s attempt to justify himself before God (before Jesus). A rich young man is asking Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. In verse 18 Jesus responded by stating, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” Jesus goes on to list a number of the Ten Commandments as the standard by which the young man must measure his actions. The young man remarked, “Teacher, all these I have kept since I was a boy.” To which Jesus then said, “One thing you lack. God, sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” The story ends when the young man’s face fell and he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
There are a number of lessons in this story. One of these was that the young man was trying to justify himself righteous before Jesus by indicating he was “keeping the law,” when in reality he was in violation of the commandment not to make for one’s self any idols. Money was the young man’s idol, and thus he had already broken the law.
Perhaps some other young man might have listened to Jesus reciting the commandments and come to realize that not only could he not keep them in the future, but he had already broken many of them in the past. The conversation might well have then taken a different turn. He might have said something like, “Teacher, I confess that I have not kept the whole law, and I guess I need to be truthful and tell you that I don’t think I can keep it in the future either. What then can I do?” I’m fairly sure that Jesus would have told him to believe in Him, and then he will receive eternal life. One other note: later in the story of the rich young man Jesus noted that, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus responded by saying, “With man this is impossible, but not with God. With God, all things are possible” (v. 27). The crux of the message was that it is impossible for a rich man to justify himself, especially when he is engaging in idol worship. Though man might possess great wealth, and achieve tremendous influence in the worldly system, he still has two major problems: one, he still is unable to keep the law; and two, he is completely helpless in justifying himself before God – he needs divine assistance. Only God can justify a person righteous. And it’s not by the works of man that this is achieved, but by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Two other examples of men seeking to justify themselves before God can be found in Luke 16:15 and 18:11. It is from these types of Biblical references that the Bible paints an exceedingly clear picture that man, of himself, has no means of self-justification. Only God is able to perform that work.
PAUL AND JAMES – Are they in agreement with each other?
Much has been said over the years about salvation, justification, and works, and their relationship to each other. I think it is best to look at this from a chronological perspective, starting with the words of the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9:
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this
not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that
no one can boast.”
Paul makes the following points:
1. You are saved by (God’s) grace through faith (in Jesus Christ).
2. This salvation did not originate from yourselves.
3. It is the gift of God (therefore it cannot be earned).
4. This salvation is not by any type of works that a man can perform.
Back in Romans chapter 4, Paul gave an illustration from Genesis 15:6 concerning Abraham’s justification:
“If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something
to boast about – but not before God. What does the scripture
say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as
righteousness.” (Romans 4:2-3)
Now, going forward to James chapter 2 we read:
“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but
has no deeds (works)? Can such faith save him? Faith, by
itself, if it is not accompanied by action (works – KJV), is dead.
You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds
is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous
for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You
see, a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”
James is clearly referring to Genesis chapter 22 (Paul referenced Genesis 15 – seven chapters earlier) as the point where Abraham was justified righteous. What we see here is an illustration that James uses to answer those people who are claiming to have saving faith but no works. Specifically, he states; “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? (what good is that man’s faith?)” In effect, James is saying, “You claim to have faith? You claim that God has saved you, put His Holy Spirit in you, and sealed you for redemption? You claim all these things and yet you let the poor go without food or clothes? What kind of a faith is that? I, James, will tell you quite frankly that if you possess the kind of saving faith that results in regeneration and changes a person’s life, the Holy Spirit will do a work in you and cause you to follow the Lord’s decrees (Ezekiel 36:27) and feed and clothe the poor.”
Well, what then does Paul state about works as proof that a person’s life is changed? Perhaps not surprisingly, he agrees with James:
“I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove
their repentance by their deeds (works).” (Acts 26:20)
So why did Paul state in Ephesians that a person is saved by grace through faith, and not by works? And why did he refer to Genesis 15:6 as the point of Abraham’s justification and not Genesis 22?
Initial saving faith is the precursor to works. Abraham was not saved (justified righteous) by performing works, he was performing works od A Godly nature because he first was saved and regenerated by faith. Works of a Godly nature are the result of our regeneration and salvation, not the cause of it. Faith by grace is the antecedent of works. It chronologically occurs first. Once the Holy Spirit indwells a believer at the point of salvation, He starts the process of Progressive Sanctification, and one of the effects of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5-7) is that of causing, or compelling a person, by a change of heart and mind and with the believer’s cooperation, to perform works of a Godly nature. James’ argument addresses that time period of a person’s life, following true salvation and regeneration, when good works are supposed to be in evidence. He is saying, “Now that you claim to be saved, we should be seeing some good works out of you. However, if these good works are not apparent, then your initial faith was probably not genuine, and you were never, either in the eyes of God, nor in the eyes of man, justified righteous.”
Another way to illustrate this is to consider the thief on the cross next to Jesus – the one who stated, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Then Jesus responded by saying, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:42-43). It was at this particular moment that the repentant thief received his salvation, and was justified righteous in the eyes of God. This particular moment would also coincide with Genesis 15:6, when Abraham believed God and it was credited (imputed to his account) as righteousness, and would also coincide with what Paul stated in Ephesians 2:8-9. Note that there is no evidence that the thief had performed any good works in his life. To the contrary, his works were more of a criminal nature than a Godly nature. That was the very reason he was being crucified. Even as he initially hung from his cross, he heaped insults on the Lord (Mark 15:32). But then the sky darkened, his pain and suffering magnified, and the words Jesus spoke on the cross hit their appointed target, and the thief had a change of heart and believed on the Lord. At that point, the thief received his salvation and justification.
Now, if by some means the thief could have come down from the cross, prior to death, and continued on with his life, then eventually his saving faith would have produced good works (corresponding to Abraham in Genesis 22 and James chapter 2). There is a progression whereby salvation leads to good works. In the eyes of God, Abraham was genuinely justified righteous in Genesis 15:6. Because his faith was genuine, it produced his works in Genesis 22, whereby he was seen as being justified righteous in the eyes of men. James and Paul, though they approach the issue of justification from two different points in time and two different perspectives (the perspective of God and the perspective of man), nevertheless are in total agreement with each other.
Recommended reading:
The Foundations of Christian Doctrine, by Kevin J. Conner
God bless America!
- The Righter Report
The Power of Grace and Forgiveness
SCRIPTURE READING: Matthew 5:23-24; 6:14-15; 18:21-22.
“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; and then come and offer your gift.”
“For if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father in heaven will not forgive you your sins.”
“Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, ‘Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you, not seven times but seven times seventy” (Also see Matthew 18:23-35).
During his many travels Ernest Hemingway once spent some time in Madrid, Spain. And he told the story about a young man who had a falling out and a disagreement with his father, to the extent that, in anger, the son left home and ran away. The father was very hurt and upset, but after a short period of time he longed again to be reconciled to his only son, whereby he placed an ad in the local newspaper that read: “Paco (the son’s name), meet me at the Hotel Montana at noon Tuesday. All is forgiven. Love, Papa.” Well, Paco is a common name in Spain, and it turns out that when the father went to the hotel square to meet his son he found a number of other young men named Paco anxious and waiting for their fathers.
It’s somewhat sad that on that day only one family was reconciled back together when many others could have been.
Today, two of the major problems that we face in the church of Jesus Christ are, (1) the failure to understand and receive God’s unconditional love, grace, and forgiveness in our lives, and (2) the failure to give the same things out to others. Grace, love, and forgiveness are Christianity’s most gracious gift to the world we live in, exerting a force stronger than vengeance, stronger than racism, and stronger than hatred. What blocks forgiveness is not God’s reticence, but ours. God’s arms are always open. We are the one’s who sometimes walk away, thinking God cannot forgive what we’ve done. Let me assure you, He does. And He does it because He loves us.
Remember the apostle John? He was the one who wrote that he was the disciple that Jesus loved. I think in reality all the other disciples felt the same way. But only John wrote that down for us. What is our primary identity in life? Should it not be, “I am the one who Jesus loves?”
And I think God’s love and mercy are the reasons we cannot look to the government and other institutions for the answers to our problems. As Phillip Yancey noted, the government can arrest and punish KKK murderers, but it cannot cure their hatred, much less teach them how to love. It can pass laws making divorce more difficult but it cannot show husbands and wives how to love each other. It can give welfare to the poor, but cannot show the rich how to shower them with mercy and compassion. It can ban adultery but not lust, theft but not covetousness. And it can encourage virtue but cannot bestow holiness or character. Only God can do those things.
There was once a meeting of many of the world’s philosophers and religious leaders and one of them asked, “What is Christianity’s unique contribution to the world?” After struggling with this issue for some time, a man by the name of C. S. Lewis walked into the room and asked what the fuss was all about. After telling him that they were trying to define the one principle that separated Christianity from the other religions and philosophies of the world, Lewis responded, “Oh, that’s easy. It’s grace.” He knew that grace was the manifestation of God’s love, freely given to a world that has known so little of it.
Our God is a good God, and He is a God of reconciliation – father to son, mother to daughter, brother to brother, and man back to God. That’s the predominate theme we see repeated over and over again in the Bible – God’s love, grace, and forgiveness in reconciling brother to brother, and man to God. And the ultimate expression of His love and forgiveness was manifested at the cross of Calvary, where Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice so that our transgressions and guilt would never be counted against us. Do you want to see another example of the depth of God’s desire and commitment for reconciliation? I’ll read you 2 Samuel 14:14, then. “But God does not take away life; instead He devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from Him.” Reconciliation is the goal, and grace and forgiveness are the means that God uses to bring it to pass.
Mark Twain used to tell the story about how he put a cat and a dog together in a cage to see if they could get along. They did, so then he put in a bird, a pig, and a goat. After a few adjustments, they too got along. And then he put in a Baptist, a Presbyterian, and a Catholic. And within an hour there wasn’t anyone left alive. Obviously, they weren’t discussing forgiveness and reconciliation.
So, “Just what is forgiveness?”
The Greek word to forgive means “to release, to dismiss, to hurl away, or to free yourself.” You see, there is a prisoner who is set free once we forgive our neighbor, and that prisoner is us. If we do not forgive others, we remain bound and chained in our own bitterness and resentment – we are held captive to the hatred or pain that someone else has caused us. It’s like we have given the people who have hurt us free rent to take up residence in our hearts and minds so that we can continually be reminded of that bitterness. In Ephesians 4:31 the apostle Paul tells us to get rid of all our anger, bitterness, and rage. Because everytime we are reminded of the pain, or the person who caused it, our anger and resentment resurfaces from somewhere deep within us to make us feel that bitterness over and over and over and over again. If we do not forgive, we continue to bear the wounds that the pain has caused us until time or death takes it from us. Some people remain in bondage their entire lives, because their pride won’t let them forgive someone who has hurt them. So now we add the sin of pridefulness to unforgiveness, and if we take revenge and add that in as well, then all of a sudden we’ve broken three of God’s commandments instead of just one.
Unfortunately, bitter people do not make very good friends, because their bitterness destroys their love, and their hearts turn cold.
Back in the first world war, the Germans were forced to sign an armistice in the back of a railroad car. Adolph Hitler remembered that, and when he defeated the French at the start of World War II he made them sign their surrender agreement in the same railroad coach that previously ended World War I. Hitler had held his bitterness and hatred inside him for over twenty years, and we can see the devastation and the destruction that it caused the world.
Failure to forgive others imprisons us in an unpleasant memory from our past and keeps us from achieving our potential for constructive change. Unforgiveness is often just revenge waiting to happen. And the one major flaw with revenge is that it never seems to settle the score. It sets off a chain reaction of vengeance that never ends, and it’s like an escalator that no one ever gets off. Ghandi once said, “If everyone followed the ‘eye for an eye’ principle of revenge, eventually the whole world would go blind.” There will never be any escape from hatred, war, or misery unless our hearts are changed and we learn to forgive and show mercy to others. So forgiveness is a release from the prison of bitterness that people build for themselves. Man has built many prisons in his day, but this is one that he can surely do without.
The next thing that I think needs to be said is that of all the people that we need to forgive, we need to forgive ourselves the most. There’s probably no other group of people in the world who carry around the amount of guilt and baggage that Christians do. It’s totally unnecessary. And there’s several reasons for this. The first reason is that Christians read their Bibles, and they know that God hates sin. They get convicted by the Holy Spirit and condemned by the devil. They live in constant fear that God will never accept them or forgive them.
There was this one woman who had just recently become a Christian. She was still having a problem believing God had forgiven her of all her sins. So she went to her pastor and asked him, “Has God really forgiven me ALL my sins?” The pastor replied, “You know if this is really troubling you, I think I know what God would tell you. He would tell you to mind your own business!” The woman was startled when she heard that and asked the pastor what he meant. He said, “Your sins are no longer any of your business. Jesus made them His business at Calvary and He’s already taken care of them. He cast them into the depths of the ocean and posted a sign on the beach that says, ‘No Fishing.’”
Yet no matter what you do, some people still feel unworthy their whole life through. What they desire most is to know and feel that God loves them and accepts them – that he affirms them in His heart, and that He will never let go of them even though He may not always be real pleased with what He has. Often, people think their sins are uglier and more unforgivable than anyone else’s, and so they think they have to do some extraordinary amount of good works to make up for it. But that makes salvation a salvation by works and not by grace. And that’s not what the Bible teaches. In Ephesians 2:8-9 Paul wrote: “For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith. And this not of yourselves. It is the gift of God – not by works so that no man can boast.” People often don’t understand the magnificence of God’s grace, mercy, and forgiveness. If salvation were by any kind of works then man could boast about what he’s done. But the Bible says there won’t be any boasting at the judgment seat, because salvation is something God does by grace alone. It is a gift of unmerited favor, and there’s nothing we can ever do to earn it.
God’s grace comes with no strings attached to people who do not deserve it. God loves people because of who He is, not because of who we are. It’s not about fairness, it’s about mercy. Love is God’s bottom line, and mercy and forgiveness through Christ Jesus are the means He uses to take away our guilt. The often-heard adage in Christianity is “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” That goes for ourselves too. We need to love and forgive ourselves so we can pass that on to others. Do you think you’ve done something God cannot forgive you for? Once again, take a look at the type of people in the Bible that God loved and forgave. Moses was a murderer. Yet after he died he was resurrected into heaven and eventually appeared to Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration. God forgave him. King David was an adulterer and a murderer. Yet the split second after David confessed his sins God said, “Your sins are forgiven.” Even the apostle Paul was an accomplice to murder and the Bible says he “persecuted believers to death.” Yet God forgave him and made him an apostle to the nations.
The solution to sin is not to impose an ever-stricter code of behavior on people that they can’t possibly keep. If that were true, then salvation would have come to us through Moses and not through Christ. The solution is to know Christ and accept His unmerited favor. One theologian gave this simple definition of God: “God is the one who loves.” God is a good God. The Bible says, “There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” And Romans 11:32 says, “For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on them all.” Jesus died for all of our sins – past, present, and future. So the necessity is that we need to forgive ourselves so that we can learn to develop more love for one another. If you have a sin that you feel guilty about, confess it and get it under the blood. Then move on and don’t worry about it anymore. Remember, it’s “none of your business anymore.” Continuous guilt is a tool that Satan uses to keep us from becoming productive and loving Christians. We must be able to overcome that.
The next thing I’d like to say about forgiveness is that forgiveness is seldom easy. Often it’s difficult and many times it is downright painful. It seems to go against our very nature. You all remember the story of Joseph, and how his brothers betrayed him and sold him into slavery. Years later, after he had been enslaved and thrown into prison, Joseph interpreted a dream for the Pharaoh of Egypt, and the Pharaoh, in gratitude, made him governor over all the people of Egypt. And later, during a famine, the brothers of Joseph came into Egypt to buy grain to feed their people. They hadn’t seen Joseph in over seventeen years, and for all they knew he was dead. If anyone had good cause to be bitter it was Joseph. Yet on the day that Joseph chose to forgive his brothers and be reconciled to them, the scripture says that he cried so loudly that the Egyptians heard him.” What was that sound we heard – that terrible crying? Is Joseph okay? Yes, he’s fine. That’s the sound of a man forgiving.
Our innate sense of pride and justice fights against us forgiving people. We say to ourselves, “Why do I have to forgive? Why doesn’t the other person come to me and ask for my forgiveness? Why do I always have to be the one to initiate it? But forgiveness isn’t about keeping score. It’s about making friends with your enemies. Abraham Lincoln once remarked, “Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?” Forgiveness is an unnatural act that stops the vicious cycle of retribution. But there’s one thing that’s even harder than forgiving – the alternative – continually living with the pain, anger, and bitterness of unforgiveness. Why should anyone want to subject themselves to that type of unpleasantness?
Forgiveness also restores the other person to wholeness by setting them free from the guilt and pain they caused. It releases a healing power both in us and in the person who did us wrong, and sets us both free. It restores relationships, brings families back together, and sets us free from unpleasant memories. It’s like one of those big church bells like the hunchback of Notre Dame used to ring. As long as unforgiveness reigns, the church bell keeps ringing in our ears. But once we forgive, the ringing of the bell, like our guilt and pain, slowly begin to fade away, until the only sound we have left is the sound of peace and serenity.
Some people think we need only forgive those who repent. If they don’t we don’t have to forgive them. But what did Jesus say about those who crucified Him? He said, “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.” The principle is clear. Even if we can’t set the offender free, then we can at least set ourselves free. Vengeance is not ours to take. “Vengeance is mine,” declares the Lord. If we recognize that God alone is the one who judges and avenges, then we can release ourselves from that obligation.
If we don’t forgive, we’re never going to have any peace or unity in our families. It’s like the two brothers once went to a rabbi to settle a long-standing feud. After a brief period of hollering and arguing, the rabbi finally got the brothers to reconcile their differences and shake hands with each other. As the two were about to leave, the rabbi asked each of them to make a wish for the other to celebrate the Jewish New Year. The first young man turned to his brother and said, “I wish you the same thing that you wished for me.” At that, the second brother threw up his hands and started screaming and said, “See that, rabbi, he’s starting it up all over again!”
Why forgive? Really, that’s the wrong question. It should be, “Why love?” It’s because we are commanded to. Our emotional health should not depend on waiting for someone else to ask our forgiveness. We do not give people that much power over us. We take the initiative and do the right things not because it’s easy, but because we value God’s word and our own happiness. Forgiveness is an ongoing process in our lives. Little by little, bit by bit, layer upon layer of bitterness and hatred is burned away, until our rage is gone, and all that is left is love. We make a conscious decision not to harbor resentment. We make a commitment to no longer be controlled by rage and pain. Instead, we choose to forgive and give out grace and mercy to others. Surely that has to be God’s desire for all of us.
Today, I ask for all of us to look into our hearts and find out if there is anyone we need to forgive. That shouldn’t be difficult to do – to identify who it is that we need to forgive. Just look for the pain, or look for the anger…. the person responsible for it won’t be far behind. And let us not forget to forgive ourselves. You see, in some mysterious way, God’s forgiveness for us depends on us forgiving each other. Ask Him to take away any pain you may have. He is faithful and true, and He will do it.
I will close with a word from Christian author Philip Yancey, who wrote: “The world thirsts for grace and mercy. And when it descends, the world falls silent before it.”
Many excerpts in this message are from the book, “What’s So Amazing About Grace,” by Philip Yancey
- The Righter Report
A Gift for Daddy – A Christmas Story
Once upon a time, not so long ago, a man disciplined his five-year-old daughter for using up the family’s only roll of expensive gold wrapping paper before Christmas.
Money was tight, so he became even more upset when, on Christmas Eve, he saw that the child had used the expensive gold paper to decorate a large shoebox she had placed under the Christmas tree.
Nevertheless, the next morning the little girl, filled with excitement, brought the gift box to her father and said, “This is for you, Daddy! Merry Christmas!”
As he opened the box, the father was embarrassed by his earlier overreaction, now regretting how he had punished her.
But when he opened the shoebox, he found it was empty and again his anger flared. “Don’t you know, young lady,” he said harshly, “that when you give someone a present there’s supposed to be something inside the package?”
The little girl looked up at him with sad tears rolling from her eyes and whispered: “Daddy, it’s not empty. I blew kisses into it until it was all full.”
The father was crushed. He fell on his knees and put his arms around his precious little girl. He begged her to forgive him for his unnecessary anger.
An accident took the life of the child only a short time later. It is told that the father kept this little gold box by his bed for all the years of his life. Whenever he was discouraged or faced difficult problems, he would open the box, take out an imaginary kiss, and remember the love of this beautiful child who had put it there.
In a very real sense, each of us have been given an invisible golden box filled with unconditional love and kisses from our children, family, friends and from God.
There is no more precious possession anyone could hold.
May God bless you and your family this Christmas Season.
Other Christmas Stories:
- The Righter Report
Our Battle for the Soul of America
Rabbi Spero is a radio talk show host, and president of Caucus for America. He can be reached at www.caucusforamerica.com.
People of faith look around our country at forms of behavior now accepted and wonder how is it possible that during their own lifetime things have so dramatically deteriorated. I refer not simply to the decadent sexual realities that have become so de rigueur but to the political positions and mouthings spewing from politicians who appear to care more about our enemies than the plight of our soldiers, and profess a worldview more internationalist than American.
The elitists in media, academia, Hollywood, government – especially the Courts – have united to reconstitute the Founding Fathers’ vision of a nation conceived in G-d We Trust, One Nation Under G-d, into a secular, hedonistic version of France and Sweden. They seem to be succeeding. Why?
It is because people of faith, along with patriotic Americans, have responded tepidly and not mightily, as is required in such a battle. Many remain silent and complacent because our goodwill and naiveté have stood in the way of our apprehending how those forces have had as their mission – for decades – the erasing of Judeo-Christian influence in American civic life and the diminution of real patriotism that is its twin.
What motivates these elitists is anti-Christianism and anti-historic Americanism. But to destroy America one must first destroy serious Protestantism, for the Judeo-Christian ethic is America’s founding rock. And to destroy America’s unique brand of Christianity, one must first destroy the specific American ethos that spawned it. Secularists have been successful for, apparently, they are more zealous in their crusade than we have been in our beliefs. Their religion is left/liberalism, fanatic liberalism: today’s neo-paganism. Animated by the fervor of paganism, they have managed, through intimidation, to disparage and squelch true public religiosity while spreading – missionary-like – their creed of secularism, hedonism.
Simply answering with love is no match for those using the stick of intimidation, weapons of mass cultural destruction (WMCDs). We, believing and patriotic Americans, were caught off guard since we assumed that the face arrayed against Christianity and love of country would be an ugly face. But that is not so, for throughout history pagans have most often been charming neighbors. No doubt those false prophets who followed the wicked King Ahab and Jezebel dined in ancient Judea’s finest restaurants, attended the theater, dressed well, were fashionable, and comported themselves with ingratiating, amiable manners. Look at the French!
Were not the ancient pagans who extolled beauty and grace charming? The elites of their day? The face of paganism in ancient high society as well as today’s is often a pleasant one and, therefore, dangerously disarming. Rarely is it the face of Genghis Kahn. Pagan secularists did not want to kill their neighbors, rather invite them into their multi-cultural, pantheistic circles. Retain your God, they proclaimed, so long as your God assumes his pitiful position among the many gods and cultures. Continue your Americanism and Christianity here in America, the multiculturalists assert, so long as it is not dominant, simply a limp ingredient in the overriding multi-cultural edifice.
It would be silly in a modern society to frame an argument in language speaking of multi-gods, pantheism. The appeal is made, therefore, in terms of multiculturalism, a code-phrase, an undertaking for diminishing the Old-Line Protestant Christianity that produced America’s historic culture. Diversity in different segments of society is enriching. The intent, however, of professional multiculturalists is to weaken America’s civic culture by relegating its fount, Old Testament Christianity, to a low rung; by ordering Christians of Faith to the back of the bus.
As in any culture war, it is won by those who define and, therefore, command, the moral language. American liberals did this by employing terminology they knew good-willed people – us – would readily accept: compassion, sensitivity, inclusion, tolerance. Especially tolerance, for who wishes to be called intolerant, the deadliest of the neo-pagan seven sins. Limitless tolerance – a fanatic tolerance – is the very essence of paganism. It accepts everything, including decadence. Out of a desire for appearing good – and we have allowed liberals to decide who in this society is considered “good” — we’ve been intimidated into accepting that which our forbearers, even non-religious, would never have accepted.
Every person needs a doctrine or set of guiding principles from which to order his life. Historically, ours derived from the Old and New Testament. Rejecting the constraints demanded by the Bible, liberals created their own deities, mirroring, almost to a tee, the virtues assigned to respective pagan gods. They worship these deities with an absolutism surpassing, often, our own to our G-d. While we’ve allowed ourselves to be intimidated or embarrassed into silence, fanatic liberals have never flinched from relentless public chanting of their deities: “separation of church and state,” “racism,” “non-judgmentalism” – except when judging Christians of Faith. Sin and virtue in our society have been re-categorized to reflect a hierarchy of liberal values instead of the ones enunciated in the Bible and displayed by America’s past everyday citizens.
Liberals have instituted a new type of Replacement Theology, even corrupting mainline Protestant and Catholic denominations. What one hears from the pulpits today in many Jewish temples is akin to what was heard at the Temple of Zeus. It is delivered by clergymen who are modern-day versions of the ancient False Prophets. America’s liberals have co-opted the moral language. We are to tolerate all lifestyles, except that of the traditional family. Tolerate every “religion,” except Evangelical Christianity. Tolerate every culture, except that of the unique American civilization. We are to have compassion for America’s enemies but be “ho-hum” about our soldiers and those beheaded by our enemies. We must show compassion to criminals while caring not how victims and society live in fear. We must be sensitive to the needs of those following Haitian witchcraft, Ramadan and Kwanzaa, but do our best to prohibit nativity scenes and crosses. Sensitivity to every group, not however to white, Christian evangelicals – and their wives. We must never be racist, but bigotry is welcome when denigrating Southerners.
Equality should mean no double standards, yet certain segments of society are exused for behavior that are not tolerated when done by the mainstream. In the name of anti-racism, we are asked to accept reverse racism. For example, affirmative action is forced on a society that clearly wishes to reward merit and character rather than color of skin. We must be inclusive, except when it comes to excluding principled practicing Christians of Faith who go before the Senate Judiciary Committee as nominees for Federal judgeships. The A.C.L.U., the legal arm of pagan America, has convinced us all that George Washington fought at Valley Forge to found a nation predicated on “separation of church and state.” Unfortunately, they have succeeded.
The truth is the A.C.L.U. never believed in separation of church and state as much as using it as a hammer to dampen Christianity, its symbols, its values. The proof? In the last two years it has taken up the cause of defending Islamic “religious rights” – from wearing full-length burkas at community swimming pools to public school recitings from the Koran representing Islamic figures, to its silence on the issue of five-times-a-day-call- to-prayer loudspeaker announcements from mosques on public streets. The A.C.L.U. says, “those are cultural expressions, not religious.” Yet, Santa Claus, carols, nativity scenes, and crosses in military cemeteries…
The secular Left is purposely elevating Islam as a means to neutralize Christianity. It does so for it knows that the only way to destroy the American we’ve known is by destroying the Christianity, the Judeo-Christian ethic, which created it and made it great. It realizes that what stands in its way of molding America into a libertine European country, and a socialist “utopia” with them at the controlling helm, is Evangelical Christianity.
Liberals are today rewriting our religious heritage by now referring to “our” Judeo-Christian-Islamic heritage, as if George Washington and John Adams spoke Arabic. When one observes the sheer absurdity of how these terms are today – through political correctness – employed and enforced, the phrase that comes to mind is absolutism, extremism. That liberals don’t question their reckless application of those terms is a sign of their blind faith. They are the religious Left.
When one beholds the mean-spiritedness behind each of these “virtues” created to exclude Christians and true-blue Americanism, the intent is obviously to destroy. What began as the goal of marginalizing Christianity has evolved into a desire to vanquish, from within, John Adams’s America. For the two are symbiotic. For the neo-Communists to control all power, they know they must first topple the twin pillars. The Jews and Christians of antiquity knew paganism for what it was and fought it. We, however, have been blindsided, and suckered.
We have compartmentalized our lives by retreating into the private all the while allowing the purveyors of secularism to reign over the public. We now find that the public domain controls our private realms. In the process, we have almost forfeited America, the America extant from the Pilgrims’ arrival until 1963. In our defense, we had assumed that paganism would attack the church frontally. It did not. Instead, it cleverly came through the door of government, courts, schools, our institutions. The media and press facilitated it, collaborated. We expected paganism to ride at us in blatant anti-religious garb. Instead, it arrived on a Trojan horse, a benighted political horse: liberalism.
We had thought that those living within the geographic boundaries called America were brothers, sometimes with slight differing views. We’ve learned, however, that country is more than geography but a set of core beliefs and values. Had what is being done to America today from those within its borders been enacted by people outside its shores, we would have recognized it as an invasion with intent to destroy our way of life, and liberties. We would have raised our swords. It is time we recognize that there are battalions living in America who, as if foreigners, share nothing of our American core beliefs and values. They are not brothers. To them, we are an enemy.
Even some who hail from American blue-blood families have tossed aside their heritage for internationalism, preferring to be citizens of the world. We’ve seen this phenomenon before. During ancient Israel’s Second Commonwealth, there arose (circa 185 B.C. – 10 B.C.) an elitist, pagan class called Hellenists. Though some were from Judea’s ancient families, they chose internationalism over the security and indigenous culture of their people, Israel. They abandoned the G-d of Israel for the culture and gods of the world. Internationalism has always been the enemy of David’s God.
No wonder a recent poll showed that Evangelicals are by far this nation’s most patriotic. The Hebrew term for paganism, idol worship, false gods, is avodah zarah. The ancients who engaged in avodah zarah, especially the Canaanites, never worshipped the objects per se but the ideal each object represented: excessive passion, self-indulgence, lust, nature, environment, gluttony, pantheism. These idols, especially in pre-Mosaic Canaan, represented the base in man, not the Divine. The pull and power of idol worship was enormous, as is neo-paganism today. One of the most popular and seductive gods was Baal, the Molech god. Molech, a fire god, demanded the sacrifice of a mother’s child. It was a fashion of the time, just as is today the sacrifice of one’s fetus to Mother feminism: abortion at any time, for any reason, even partial birth abortion. It is the sacrament. It has become the sophisticated mantra of our day that “a woman’s right to her own body” constitutes enlightenment.
Are we any less guilty of fashion-obsession than were the ancient fashion-conscious idol worshippers? How many in America are, like Elijah of old, willing to endure the out-casting “high society” confers on those standing up to today’s False Prophets of Liberalism? In Islamic society, “suicide bombing” is the sacrifice more and more mothers are proud to offer to the god Allah. Imams have elevated the purposeful death of a woman’s child for the sake of Allah as a surefire step to social standing and prominence. This, too, is Baal worship, paganism. (This itself affirms how all “holy books” are not equal, and that the true G-d we worship is defined not simply by being One but by His teachings. Their god is not our G-d.)
The fact that many on the Left, in Europe and America, have begun establishing “Endowment/Charity Funds to subsidize these “martyr” mothers is indicative of the symbiosis developing between the Left and Islam. You may ask, what unites these western sophisticates with Middle East barbarians? Anti-Christianity, anti-Americanism, paganism: the devotion to avodah zarah.
Unfortunately, we, too, have become seduced by a form of Molechism. It is the sacrifice of our children to an absurd, neo-morality. In the name of neo-morality we ask our soldiers not to fire until Islamic terrorists first fire on them. We ask our soldiers to go house-to-house in search of terrorists instead of bombing from above. The reason being: to “spare the innocents.” Look how Israel unnecessarily forfeited 23 soldiers in Jenin by sending them house-to-house in search of Arab terrorists so that “innocents” – who all wished them dead – could be spared from helicopter bombing from above. Many Leftist Israelis, as liberals here in America, felt a “spiritual” joy that their own were sacrificed in behalf of the new “higher” morality.
While historically the U.S. tried to protect non-combatants, when did it become the goal of war to let our own truly innocent die so as to spare the enemy’s “innocents?” The morality the Bible demands for war is quite simple and direct: Do not plunder, rape and ransack for the satisfaction of lust; rather, limit war’s purpose to the defense and security of country. Protecting one’s soldiers was considered paramount. Sacrificing them on the altar of “look how nice we are” was and is never Biblical, instead a form of self-worship. In fact, a secular newspaper editorialized how wonderful this neo-morality is for without it, the editor asks, “What gives meaning to us in this land?” Well, religious Christians and Jews already have meaning in their lives, thank you. Only a secularist is forced to fashion a neo-morality to supply personal meaning. Only someone who doesn’t believe in his own country’s way of life and ethos would require ersatz meanings to life.
Michael Lerner, one of this country’s most vocal and influential Leftists, Hillary Clinton’s former guru, announced that the United States must create a “Politics of Meaning.” I’m certain that Rev. Pat Robertson and Rev. Jerry Falwell and Brit Hume have no such need! The ubiquitous “compassion” phrase has been invoked in numerous editorials to justify the unnecessary deaths of our own military men and women so as to spare Moslem “innocents.” Only a twisted pagan view of what constitutes true compassion could make such an assertion. But even good men, religious men, have fallen sway to the new morality and definition of compassion being shoved down our throats.
The political correctness police have begun their indoctrination. It is hard to defy this brainwashing even while the heart murmurs “It is not so.” To me, none of this is genuine compassion, rather a disregard for the sanctity of our young soldiers’ lives. It places a higher value on others than our own. It is perverse internationalism, a disease infecting many in high places.
There is a 2,500-year-old Midrash (Jewish Bible commentary) that reflects on the civic nature of Biblical Sodom. It states: “In Sodom good was called bad; evil was labeled worthy. Cruelty was forced on those deserving compassion, while compassion was extended to the cruel. The pleas from victims of crime went unheeded because of the ‘rights’ granted perpetrators.” Sodom, as the Bible tells us, was a garden-like city and prosperous. Nonetheless, it was pagan. While paganism boasts of “loving life and all its pleasures,” at its heart it is suicidal, dark, full of self-hate and death-wish. It is cynical, bored. Psychologists might call this “compensation.”
Today’s extreme liberalism exhibits that nihilism, imbuing within its adherents a subconscious emotion longing for the death of its own American civilization. Rarely do societies have a chance to relive the actual Biblical experience. We do! In the form of extreme liberalism, high-society paganism in America and Europe is marching to conquer Biblical values.
If we wish to transmit to our children and grandchildren the religious heritage we cherish as well as the Americanism we inherited from our forefathers, we must fight now – in the public domain. We cannot afford to lose. We cannot turn the other check, for our Battle is for the Soul of America. As Elijah said: “Who is for G-d stand up: Come.” Now, before it is too late!
(Reprinted with permission from Rabbi Aryeh Spero)
- The Righter Report
Obama vs. the Bible – Abortion
This is the third in a series of articles on Obama vs. the Bible, demonstrating his preference for the tenets of political correctness and secular moral relativism over traditional Godly and Biblical values.
First up, a brief recap of Obama’s voting record on abortion.
Obama on Abortion: In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007. On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.” (Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238-239 Aug 1, 2008)
When asked if he believed if life begins at conception, Obama replied:
“This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don’t presume to know the answer to that question.” (Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008)
And in a classic display of Biblical ignorance, Obama said the following during an interview with Pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California:
“…whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
Have you never read Psalm 139:13 or Jeremiah 1:5, Mr. President?
It’s no secret that Barack Obama claims to be a Christian. “I’m a Christian by choice,” the president said. “I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith.” Notice that President Obama’s public service actions are based on his Christian beliefs. Or so he claims. The evidence, though, is to the contrary.
Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973, and for the last four decades, the lives of some 50 million unborn American citizens, teachers, scientists, health care professionals, and taxpayers – enough souls to actually fund, in full, the Pelosi, Reid, and Obama Health Care bill, have been snuffed out on the altar of personal convenience and political correctness. And while many Republicans and Independents have likewise abrogated their moral responsibilities to the unborn, their moral turpitude pales in comparison to the dedicated left wing pro-infanticide crowd, and Barack Obama in particular.
What does the Bible say about when life begins?
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.” (Exodus 21:22-23)
Straight from the Jewish Torah, God immediately affirms the value of human life in a mother’s womb.
Next, a divinely appointed prophet from the womb:
Jeremiah 1:5 – ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
Other prophets and Biblical personalities ordained from their mother’s wombs:
Samson: Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, “A man of God came to me and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome. And I did not ask him where he came from, nor did he tell me his name. “But he said to me, `Behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and now you shall not drink wine or strong drink nor eat any unclean thing, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.’” (Judges 13:6-7, see also Judges 16:17)
John the Baptist: “For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:15)
Jesus, the Son of God: Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” – Luke chapter 1
The Apostle Paul: “But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased…” (Galatians 1:15)
It is clear in scripture that in some way, God creates life in a mother’s womb.
Psalm 139:13 – ‘For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.’
Of course, the question for Barack and Michelle Obama and the pro-abortion crowd, is: What divine insight does the pro-abortion crowd think they have to where they can destroy in a mother’s womb that which God is somehow instrumental in creating? Mr. President? Michelle Obama? Anyone?
Those were future prophets to the nations and the Savior of mankind in the womb. But the pro-abortion crowd wants to pretend that instead of babies with divine plans, they were nothing more than unviable tissue masses. Well, God is not fooled, and neither are those who read and respect God’s word.
Barack Obama says that abortion needs to be more rare. Which begs the question – if there’s nothing wrong with abortion, then why does it need to be more rare? Mr. President? And if there is something wrong with the practice of abortion, then why isn’t Barack Obama pro-life? Can anyone answer that? Barack? Michelle Obama? Besides berating and apologizing for America, what did they teach in that church you attended for the last twenty years? Did they ever teach you what the Word of God says about how God creates life in a mother’s womb? Did you ever crack open your Bibles and read those passages with the same diligence and thoroughness as Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals? And if you did read it, why haven’t you taken it to heart?
Some might ask, “But what if the cause of the pregnancy was from rape or incest?” Examiner.com notes,
“There are numerous responses that could be given to that question, but one thing that needs to be acknowledged is that rape and incest account for less than one percent of all reported abortions. Those that use that argument would like you to believe that it is the most common reason for a woman having an abortion. Actually, the most common reason given for having an abortion is because the child is “unwanted” or “inconvenient.” That reasoning accounts for ninety-three percent of all reported abortions. In other words, ninety-three percent of abortions stem from the rejection of personal responsibility.”
It is the avoidance of personal responsibility that is one of the chief hallmarks of liberalism.
Infanticide down through the Ages
When Moses the Lawgiver was conceived, they killed the babies (Exodus chapter 1). When Jesus was born, they killed the babies (Matthew chapter 2). And now that the Lord’s return is imminent, they’re killing the babies again, only this time by the tens of millions.
The fact is that God has a plan for everyone, no matter how insignificant they may appear to be. The Bible is full of personal accounts of people who trusted in God, and who then went on to achieve great things. God respects life. America should also.
Mother Teresa on abortion:
“America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts – a child – as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters”
“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?”
Now, a question for pro-Obama Christians and Jews: Why do you vote for and support a man who condones, defends, and enables the horrendous act of infanticide against the innocent unborn? Is that not one of the most grievous practices in the whole universe – to rip the innocent unborn from a mother’s womb? A place where a baby is supposed to be nurtured and protected? But where instead the mother turns the helpless infant over for execution? And you support that man? The Word of God doesn’t mean anything to you?
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” – author unknown
And so today, the slaughter of the innocents continues.
America needs to reverse course and protect and respect the innocent unborn. There’s no other way around it. For the God who established America can darn well take our country from us and bring divine Judgment to our shores. Don’t think he won’t. Thomas Jefferson once noted:
“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781)
We are treading on very thin ice and there surely will be a personal and national price to pay for our continued, callous disregard of innocent life.
In November of 2012, protect life and vote Barack Obama and the pro-abortion congressmen and women of Capitol Hill out of office.
May God have mercy on our country.
Reference: Barack Obama on Abortion
Graphic images of aborted babies
Other Obama vs. the Bible articles:
-The Righter Report
Obama vs. the Bible – Redistribution of Wealth
Obama’s Rev. Jim Wallis Misreads the Bible
by Rabbi Aryeh Spero
Though Barack Obama is not a deeply religious man, he realizes that most Americans are, and thus has enlisted a man of the cloth to sell to the public his plans for national redistribution of wealth. The President calls the Reverend Jim Wallis his “advisor” on these matters and chose him precisely because Wallis comes to most political matters with a well-known, decidedly leftist outlook regarding the economy, healthcare and the environment, and with the anti-Israel and sometimes anti-Western tilt voguish in leftist circles, especially religious leftist circles.
Wallis has appeared lately on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” on postings in the Huffington Post, as well as in his own magazine, “Sojourners”. He states that “redistribution of wealth is what the Gospels are all about. Absolutely.” He is also urging an “economic leveling of society.” The Rev. Wallis shares some of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s views, just toned down.
Wallis cites the extreme poverty in many parts of the world as a need for us to redistribute our wealth not only domestically but also across the globe, as a way to achieve what he calls “biblical justice”. But if Wallis wishes to alleviate poverty, why would he choose the very redistributionist plans that have caused poverty in those areas and, worse, wish to institute them here, on us? Instead of depleting ourselves of wealth, why not teach others how to achieve their own prosperity?
I suspect Wallis knows all this, but, like so many on the left, is bothered by the fact that some live better than others and that constitutes “inequality.” Rather than lift others, it seems “fairer,” to the left, to bring us down. It is easier, quicker and provides the redistributionist with a sense of moral superiority. Besides, there’s much more glitter in indicting the successful of one’s own country. Like many in the left-wing clergy, Christian and Jewish, Wallis arrived at the seminary with a leftist view of the world which subsequently colored his reading of Scripture.
Though a Democrat, Wallis says, “God is not a Democrat or Republican.” That is true, but neither is He a left-wing ideologue, and it would seem that a loving God would desire prosperity for as many of His children as possible and not wish to penalize those who live by the virtues of hard work, sacrifice, discipline and responsibility that He has bequeathed to us. It only makes sense that God favors a system that provides his children with the greatest opportunities and avenues for economic prosperity and its concomitant condition of human dignity, uniquely sponsored in the Judeo-Christian outlook upon which America’s economic system is fashioned.
The social justice that God expects of us is handled not through statist redistribution of wealth but through acts of charity. In the Old Testament, there are constant calls for giving charity but none for statist redistribution of wealth, nor calls for an economic leveling of society or for a lack of distinctiveness and differences among individuals. Doing so runs contrary to the notion of the individual as a unique and distinctive being, which is the meaning behind “human created in the image of God”, i.e., singular beings.
The Bible calls for acts of charity from the individual, for in being direct and personal, charity has the ability to elevate and ennoble the giver and provider. The direct act of giving changes the person and involves and partners him with God. Unlike Marxism, the Bible emphasizes the individual, not the state, the personal and not the “masses.”
Those who receive charity are taught the virtue of gratitude. When given everything by the state, however, through redistribution of wealth, recipients are taught not gratitude but a sense of entitlement. Imbibing a sense of entitlement negates and corrupts the virtue of work that God himself announces as something good for man: “Six Days Shall Ye Work”. But the leftist egalitarian is unwilling to accept a notion that there are benefactors and recipients, since it seems so “unequal.”
That the Bible never called for redistribution of wealth is obvious when considering that it required from its citizens only a tithing, a 10% giving. It mandated another 5% or so toward functionaries in the temple as a compensation for work they did in behalf of the citizenry, like civil servants. And while government certainly has a safety-net role, the state should eschew policies that enlarge dependency and certainly not manufacture conditions, as is the Obama Administration, that make redistribution of wealth inevitable.
The equality that God seeks is not in a manufactured across-the-board parity but in “Equality before the Law.” In matters of law and redress before the court, all are equal, be they rich or poor. A virtuous and Godly society is not one that redistributes wealth but distributes law and justice across its population.
The Rev. Wallis is correct that Wall Street exhibits “greed,” yet finds nothing wrong with the work-rules and “Cadillac provisions” of unions that are rooted in greed. Nor does he castigate the greediness of millions who, out of a sense of entitlement, do not work or pay but demand to be subsidized from the take-home pay of other people’s labors. Evidently, it is not greed but achievement born of capitalism that bothers Wallis.
A society that is leveled is a society in which all become equally disadvantaged. Yet, many liberals prefer an equality of mediocrity and lack of wealth over one of achievement and prosperity if, in the end, prosperity means some have more than others, even though the poor directly benefit and live better because of the success of others. This is not social justice but socialism, which is a political category, not a moral category.
The greater the ability to create wealth, the more money is available for charity and good works. It is America’s men and women of wealth, imbued with religious and civic responsibility, who have served as the greatest patrons of the civic infrastructure, be it hospitals, libraries, museums, the arts, or the charitable United Way. England once had those patrons, but they went away as redistribution of wealth came in.
The primary theme of the Bible is individual responsibility, not entitlement and dependency. God wants the individual to be robust. The Rev. Wallis and others like him see the Bible as endorsing pacifism, be it pacifism in national defense and security matters or pacifism in economic matters. The religious left doesn’t see man solving problems through robust free-market activity but calls for, as they do regarding environmental challenges, retreat. They lack a belief in man’s ability, in man himself.
It is ironic that men of the cloth endorse the views of Karl Marx who despised the Bible. Marx propounded his message and political outlook almost two millennia after the Bible was written. His outlook is not of the Bible. To him, religion was the opiate of the masses. Marx offered a new opiate for the people: redistribution of wealth and the welfare state. Clergy should think twice before endorsing the views of Karl Marx.
Opinion: Although giving and charity are commanded by the Lord, nowhere in the Bible does it say that giving must first be filtered through a bloated and inefficient government bureaucracy. The Bible says that a man shall reap what he sows, but it doesn’t say we should live off of what other people sow. What’s more, Scripture teaches that if a man does not work, he shall not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Scripture also commands us not to covet what belongs to our neighbor:
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Exodus 20:17
From religion to our founding fathers to our Constitution we are taught that coveting others property is wrong. The Constitution guarantees us an equal opportunity not an equal outcome. We have the right to prosper and keep the fruits of our labors. This was central to the founding father’s vision for this country. We need to get back to that vision. Quotes on Redistribution of Wealth
A good couple of questions to ask the Obama Redistribution of Wealth crowd are, “Who’s your daddy? Is it God or the government?” If God, he doesn’t need the government to provide for you. It’s not very efficient and the way it’s structured now it’s not even Biblical. What’s more it’s decimating the economy. Redistribution of Wealth is, at its core, a radical left wing economic scheme centered in greed for other people’s money, rather than exercising personal responsibility and earning it one’s self. Obama and Company need to get back to Bible basics and give up on their failed socialistic idol worship.
Other Obama vs. the Bible articles:
Obama vs. the Bible – The Defense of Marriage Act
Obama vs. the Bible – Abortion
The Righter Report
Obama vs. the Bible – The Defense of Marriage Act
This commentary starts a new series of articles on Obama vs. the Bible that will continue on until Election Day 2012.
It’s no secret that Barack Obama claims to be a Christian. “I’m a Christian by choice,” the president said. “I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith.” Notice that President Obama’s public service actions are based on his Christian beliefs. Or so he claims.
But what does Barack Obama really believe, and does it coincide with what we find in the Bible? A close examination reveals that what Barack Obama believes and practices are quite often contrary to what Scripture teaches. Traditional, Biblically-based marriage is one such example.
For example, the Bible teaches that marriage is a covenant instituted by God (Malachi 2:14), and is a union between one man and one woman (Genesis 2). When God created a “helpmate” for Adam, it was a woman (Genesis 2:18-24) whom God created. Thereafter, Adam and Eve became one flesh. The Scriptures are clear that a Biblical Marriage is strictly between one man and one woman. For additional information on traditional, Biblical marriage visit here. Notice in the link that one of the purposes of a Biblical marriage is to create Godly offspring.
Concerning traditional marriage, on July 19, 2011 President Barack Obama publicly acknowledged his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. The law was passed by an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress and was signed into Law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
Evidently, based on his own ideas of political correctness, Barack Obama has turned his back on Christian values and the approved will of the people of the United States and arbitrarily declared The Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Amazing. It’s amazing since this was a personal declaration of Barack Obama and not an approved judgment or ruling handing down by the Supreme Court of the United States. What’s more, Obama’s sworn U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, is refusing to defend DOMA in legal challenges. That’s correct, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, who swore to uphold the laws of the United States of America, are now arbitrarily violating the law and violating the trust of the American people. Why? According to the New York Times, “Now President Obama says his views on same-sex marriage are ‘evolving,’ and as he runs for re-election he is seeking support from gay donors who want to know where he stands.” Obama is already on record as approving of gay civil unions.
Do we need to remind Obama and his politically correct, liberal contemporaries that sexual unions between two men or two women are sinful and not ordained by God? Let’s review the Scriptures on homosexual sin and see what the Bible says on the subject:
Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
Romans 1:26-27 – “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 Timothy 1:8-10 – “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine…”
Jude 7 – “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”
There’s no gay marriage approved in the Old Testament; no gay marriage approved in the New Testament; no gay sexual relations approved anywhere in the Bible. Just the opposite – gay sexual relations are condemned in both testaments. God is consistent on that. And no gay marriage covenant is seen anywhere in Scripture.
Some may say Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. That’s not really true. Jesus is God. As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sexual relations to begin with; and he’s the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sexual relations in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc.
It’s also worth noting that Jesus didn’t mention wife beating or other sins such as pedophilia either, and there are not many folks who would argue he approved of those behaviors. So Jesus was under no obligation to reiterate the moral laws against homosexual sin that already existed, unless there were clarifications to be made.
Now, does Obama not realize that there are negative consequences of sin that can effect an entire nation? Did he forget that the sin of one man – Achan (note Joshua 7) – resulted in the deaths of 36 fighting men? And that the sin of King David resulted in a plague that killed 70,000 Israelites (2 Samuel 24:15)? Has Obama never read Deuteronomy chapter 28 – the Blessings of Obedience to the Lord and the Consequences of Disobedience? Please remember too that when nations other than Israel got out of line with the Lord, they came under judgment also. So God’s laws and judgments are not just for Israel, or just for America either. That’s why Obama’s unbiblical decisions are a threat to America.
In conclusion, President Barack Obama has turned his back on Godly principles and the lawful will of the American people to oppose the traditional Defense of Marriage Act. Biblically-based Christians (and Jews and others who base their beliefs on the Bible) need to strongly take this into account in the next Presidential Election, and vote President Obama and Attorney General Holder and Company out of office.
Other Obama vs. the Bible articles:
Obama vs. the Bible – Abortion
Obama vs. the Bible – Redistribution of Wealth
- The Righter Report
Jesus Must be Jehovah
Is Jesus God? What do the Scriptures say?
John 1:23 quotes Isaiah 40:3 as saying John the Baptist was to prepare the way for the LORD (Jehovah). John prepared the way before Jesus so Jesus must be LORD (Jehovah).
In Isaiah 44:8 God is the only Rock. Psalm 18:31 says, “Who is the Rock except our God”? I Corinthians 10:4, identifies Jesus as the Rock. Jesus must also then be God the Rock.
Isaiah 44:24 says that God (Jehovah) is the one who has made all things. Colossians 1:16, speaking of Christ, says that “all things were created by Him and for him”. Jesus must therefore be Jehovah God.
In Jeremiah 10:10 it says “the LORD (Jehovah) is the true God”. I John 5:20 states that Jesus is the “true God”. Jesus must be the true God.
Isaiah 43:10,11 says that “I, even I, am the LORD; and there is no savior besides Me. Jesus is the Savior (Matthew 1:21, Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1, etc., etc.). Jesus must be God the Savior.
Jehovah knows all things (Psalm 147:5). Jesus knows “all things.” (John 16:30). Jesus must be Jehovah.
Jehovah alone is the only one who knows the hearts of all men. (1 Kings 8:39; Jeremiah 17:9-10). Jesus knows the hearts of all men. (John 2:24-25; Rev. 2:18, 23). Jesus must be God.
Jehovah is our sanctifier. (Exodus 31:13). Jesus sanctifies us (Hebrews 10:10). Only God is the sanctifier of men. Jesus must be God.
Jehovah is our peace (Judges 6:23). Jesus is our peace (Ephesians 2:14). Jesus must be Jehovah.
Jehovah is our righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6). Jesus is our righteousness. (Romans 3:21-22; 1 Corinthians 1:30). Jesus must be Jehovah.
Jehovah is the giver of life who will not allow His people to be delivered / snatched out of His hand (Deuteronomy 32:39). Jesus is the giver of life who will not allow His people to be “snatched” out of His hand. (John 10:28). Jesus must be Jehovah.
Jehovah’s voice is “like the roar of rushing waters” (Ezekiel 43:2). Jesus’ “voice was like the sound of rushing waters” (Revelation 1:15). Jesus must be Jehovah.
Jehovah is present everywhere.(Proverbs 15:3; Jeremiah 23:24; I Kings 8:27); Jesus is omnipresent (John 1:48; Matthew 18:20; 28:20). Jesus must be Jehovah.
Jehovah’s nature does not change (Malachi 3:6). Jesus’ nature does not change. (Hebrews 13:8).
Jehovah is the only God we are to “serve”(2 Kings 17:35); Jesus (identified as the Creator in Colossians 1:16-17) is to be served (Colossians 3:24). Jesus must be Jehovah.
Jehovah the Lord is to be set apart as holy (Isaiah 8:12b-13). Jesus, as Lord, is to be set apart as holy (1 Peter 3:14b-15a).
Jehovah’s glory is not to be given to another (Isaiah 42:8). Jesus shares Jehovah’s glory (John 17:5). Jesus must be Jehovah.
God’s name is Jehovah (or Yahweh—YHWH – Isaiah 42:8). Jesus has Jehovah’s name (John 17:11; John 16:14-15). Jesus must be Jehovah.
Jehovah is the “mighty God” (Jeremiah 32:17-18; Isaiah 10:20-21). Jesus is the “mighty God”
(Isaiah 9:6) who is “Almighty” (Revelation 1:7-8).
Jehovah is “the first and the last” (Isaiah 44:6; 48:12). Jesus is the “first and the last” (Revelation 1:17-18; 22:12-13, 20). Jesus must be Jehovah.
Jehovah is the “Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 1:8; Revelation 21:6-7). Jesus is the “Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 22:12-13, 20). Jesus must be Jehovah.
Jehovah’s title is “the Holy One” (Isaiah 47:4). Jesus is “the Holy One” (Acts 3:14; John 6:69). Jesus must be Jehovah, the Holy One.
Jehovah is the “stumbling stone” of Israel (Isaiah 8:13-15). Jesus is the “stumbling stone” of Israel (1 Peter 2:6-8). Jesus must be Jehovah.
Jehovah is the great Judge who gives life to whom he wishes and who renders to each man “according” to his “deeds” (Psalm 98:9; Deuteronomy 32:39; Jeremiah 17:9-10). Jesus is the only judge who gives life to whom he wishes and renders to each man “according” to his “deeds” (John 5:21-22; Revelation 2:18, 23). Jesus must be Jehovah.
Jehovah is the great “shepherd” who leads his people to “the spring of the water of life” (Psalm 23:1-2; Revelation 21:6-7). Jesus as the “shepherd” of His people, leads them “to springs of the water of life” (John 10:11-18; Revelation 7:17). THERE IS ONLY ONE SHEPHERD –John 10:16.
Jehovah is “Lord of Lords” (Deuteronomy 10:17). Jesus is “Lord of Lords.” (Revelation 17:14; 19:16). The Father is Lord of all (Matthew 11:25; Acts 17:24). Jesus is “Lord of all.” (Acts 10:36). THERE IS ONLY ONE LORD (Jude 4) .
Jehovah created the universe (Psalm 102:25-27). Jesus created the universe (John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-19; Hebrews 1:10-12). THERE IS ONLY ONE CREATOR. (Isaiah 44:24). Jesus must be Jehovah.
God bless!
Centuries-old Dead Sea Scrolls rolled out online
(AP) JERUSALEM – Two thousand years after they were written and decades after they were found in desert caves, some of the world-famous Dead Sea Scrolls went online for the first time on Monday in a project launched by Israel’s national museum and web giant Google.
The Digital Dead Sea Scrolls
The appearance of five of the most important Dead Sea Scrolls on the Internet is part of a broader attempt by the custodians of the celebrated manuscripts — who were once criticized for allowing them to be monopolized by small circles of scholars — to make them available to anyone with a computer.
The scrolls include the biblical Book of Isaiah, the manuscript known as the Temple Scroll, and three others. Surfers can search high-resolution images of the scrolls for specific passages, zoom in and out, and translate verses into English.
The scrolls, considered by many to be the most significant archaeological find of the 20th century, are thought to have been written or collected by an ascetic Jewish sect that fled Jerusalem for the desert 2,000 years ago and settled at Qumran, on the banks of the Dead Sea. The hundreds of manuscripts that survived, partially or in full, in caves near the site, have shed light on the development of the Hebrew Bible and the origins of Christianity.
-
Archives
- December 2011 (4)
- November 2011 (1)
- October 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (3)
- August 2011 (1)
- July 2011 (3)
- April 2011 (1)
- February 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (1)
- September 2010 (1)
- November 2009 (1)
- October 2009 (1)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
