Category Archives: Commentary

Why We Don’t Have Contemporary Music In our Church


Why We Don’t Have Contemporary Music In our Church

By IndependentBaptist.com –

May 15, 2014

by Paul Alexander

The above question is often voiced in various ways: “Why do we still sing the old songs? Why not exchange the hymnals for Power Point choruses, or sing more and shorten the sermons? The “Contemporary Church Movement” blossomed in the 1980’s in an attempt to make the church more appealing to unchurched people. Crosses came down, hymns were replaced with catchy choruses, organs and pianos moved over (or out) for the band, song leaders were replaced with worship teams, jeans replaced suits, pulpits were out and lecterns in, and the mention of “hell” and “sin” became taboo. There is nothing intrinsically Biblical about displaying crosses or singing from hymnals, and we are certainly in favor of reaching people with the gospel. We must always ask, however, “What are the Bible principles involved?”, and “Where does this path ultimately lead?”

Christ’s church (His bride) must never seek to become like the world. When the Bible speaks of “the world” it is referring to the lifestyles, priorities, attitudes and appetites that are characteristic of unsaved people, and uncharacteristic of God. The Bible has nothing positive to say about this world to which many churches and Christians are trying to appeal, appease and conform.

1 John 2:15-17 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him….

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. (See also John 15:19; Galatians 6:14; Titus 2:12)

According to Rick Warren, the first step to starting a church is to survey the community to find out what people want in a church, then give it to them [The Purpose Driven Church, ch. 8]. It is insulting, however, for Christ’s bride to strive to become like and to be loved by the very world system that crucified Him. (James calls it “adultery”.) The core premise of the contemporary church and music movement is unBiblical because it promotes conformity of the church and Christians to the world rather than to the holy image of Christ.

The contemporary church movement is producing shallow, worldly Christians and churches. Bill Hybels, the father of the seeker sensitive movement, prominently confessed, “We made a mistake…. Our churches are a mile wide and an inch deep.” [2007 Leadership Summit, Willow Creek Community Church] If the movement’s own leaders do not like where their path has led, why should we travel it?

Attracting the lost to our church is not our Biblical purpose. The church is primarily for the building up of believers to go out into the world and reach lost people who are then brought in to be discipled and in turn sent out to win others. (Ephesians 4) Certainly there is no objection to inviting the unchurched, but we must not change the message or the music in order to be liked by lost people.

The kinds of music widely enjoyed by the world will not move our church (or children) toward godliness. Rick Warren wrote, “Once you have decided the style of music for your worship you have set the direction of your church in far more ways than you realize.” [The Purpose Driven Church, p. 280-281] This striking statement by the world’s foremost contemporary leader is absolutely true and should make us consider very carefully before changing our music. Do I want to direct our church toward the world, or away from it? According to Warren, the style of music we choose helps set the course. Romans 12:2 commands, “Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”

Much of the world’s modern music is a counterfeit of the beautiful music God created and cannot be used to worship and honor Him (i.e. “Christian rock”). “Our music cannot be like the music of the world, because our God is not like their gods. Most of the world’s music reflects the world’s ways, the world’s standards, the world’s attitudes, the world’s gods…. The popular music of the Western world is the music of seduction and suggestiveness, a musical counterpart of the immoral, lustful society that produces, sings, and enjoys it.” [- J. MacArthur, Commentary on Ephesians; For more on Biblical music and worship, request our sermon CD dated September 25 AM, 2011]

We must not dilute our message, ignore Bible principles, employ worship music that is dissonant, harsh, sensual and suggestive, or seek to make the church appealing to the appetites of ungodly people, even to reach them. The true gospel will never be attractive to the unsaved in general, nor will it ever make them feel comfortable. Paul declared, “The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness….” (1 Corinthians 1:18)

by Paul Alexander

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

Grover Cleveland’s Christian Values


Grover Cleveland’s Christian Values

President Grover Cleveland

American Minute with Bill Federer

Democrat President Grover Cleveland condemned Islamic terrorism committed against Armenian Christians in Turkey, December 2, 1895:

“Massacres of Christians in Armenia and the development there…of a spirit of fanatic hostility to Christian influences naturally excited apprehension…

European powers…have assumed a duty…as agents of the Christian world…to enforce such conduct of Turkish government as will refrain fanatical brutality…as have shocked civilization.”

President Grover Cleveland wrote December 7, 1896:

“Mad bigotry and cruel fanaticism…wanton destruction of homes and the bloody butchery of men, women, and children, made martyrs to their profession of Christian faith…

Our citizens in Turkey…in the midst of dreadful scenes of danger, their safety…is by no means assured…

The outbreaks of blind fury which lead to murder and pillage in Turkey occur suddenly and without notice…

I do not believe that the present somber prospect in Turkey will be long permitted to offend the sight of Christendom…

It seems hardly possible that the earnest demand of good people throughout the Christian world for its corrective treatment will remain unanswered.”

President Cleveland defended traditional marriage, December 8, 1885:

“The strength, the perpetuity, and the destiny of the nation rest upon our homes, established by the law of God, guarded by parental care, regulated by parental authority, and sanctified by parental love.

These are not the homes of polygamy.

The mothers of our land, who rule the nation as they mold the characters and guide the actions of their sons, live according to God’s holy ordinances,

and each, secure and happy in the exclusive love of the father of her children, sheds the warm light of true womanhood, unperverted and unpolluted, upon all within her pure and wholesome family circle.

These are not the cheerless, crushed, and unwomanly mothers of polygamy.”

Cleveland insisted on gold-backed currency and pushed to lower taxes.

In 1887, Cleveland vetoed the Texas Seed Bill, stating:

“I do not believe that the power…of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering…

A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power…should…be steadfastly resisted…

Though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

Charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly… demonstrated.

Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character,

while it prevents…among our people of that kindly sentiment…which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

On OCTOBER 25, 1887, Grover Cleveland proclaimed a National Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer:

“The goodness and the mercy of God, which have followed the American people during all the days of the past year, claim their grateful recognition and humble acknowledgment…

by His omnipotent power He has protected us from war and pestilence and from every national calamity;

by His gracious favor the earth has yielded a generous return…

by His loving kindness the hearts of our people have been replenished…and

by His unerring guidance we have been directed in the way of national prosperity.”

He continued:

“To the end that we may with one accord testify our gratitude for all these blessings,

I, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States, do hereby designate and set apart…a day of thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by all the people of the land.

On that day let all secular work and employment be suspended,

and let our people assemble in their accustomed places of worship and with prayer and songs of praise give thanks to our Heavenly Father for all that He has done for us, while we humbly implore the forgiveness of our sins and a continuance of His mercy.”


Bill FedererThe Moral Liberal contributing editor, William J. Federer, is the bestselling author of “Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion,” and numerous other books. A frequent radio and television guest, his daily American Minute is broadcast nationally via radio, television, and Internet. Check out all of Bill’s bookshere.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

Justice Joseph Story on Original Intent and Religious Freedom


Justice Joseph Story on Original Intent and Religious Freedom

LIBERTY LETTERS WITH STEVE FARRELL

joseph-story2Justice Joseph Story served as a Supreme Court Justice from 1811 through 1845. His Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (first published in 1833) was required reading in U.S. law schools for over a century, being a cornerstone of early American jurisprudence. As such, it was and still is a critical source as to the original intent of the American Founders in penning and passing the First Amendment, and more particularly, regarding the Religious Establishment and Freedom of Religion clauses.

Justice Story writes:

§ 984. Let us now enter upon the consideration of the amendments, which, (it will be found,) principally regard subjects properly belonging to a bill of rights.

§ 985. The first is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition government for a redress of grievances.”

§ 986. And first, the prohibition of any establishment of religion, and the freedom of religious opinion and worship.

How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those, who were the warmest advocates of free governments, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character. Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion; the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues; — these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one’s own conscience.

§ 987. The real difficulty lies in ascertaining the limits, to which government may rightfully go in fostering and encouraging religion. Three cases may easily be supposed. One, where a government affords aid to a particular religion, leaving all persons free to adopt any other; another, where it creates an ecclesiastical establishment for the propagation of the doctrines of a particular sect of that religion, leaving a like freedom to all others; and a third, where it creates such an establishment, and excludes all persons, not belonging to it, either wholly, or in part, from any participation in the public honours, trusts, emoluments, privileges, and immunities of the state. For instance, a government may simply declare, that the Christian religion shall be the religion of the state, and shall be aided, and encouraged in all the varieties of sects belonging to it; or it may declare, that the Catholic or Protestant religion shall be the religion of the state, leaving every man to the free enjoyment of his own religious opinions; or it may establish the doctrines of a particular sect, as of Episcopalians, as the religion of the state, with a like freedom; or it may establish the doctrines of a particular sect, as exclusively the religion of the state, tolerating others to a limited extent, or excluding all, not belonging to it, from all public honours, trusts, emoluments, privileges, and immunities.

§ 988. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as it is not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

§ 989. It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether say free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. The future experience of Christendom, and chiefly of the American states, must settle this problem, as yet new in the history of the world, abundant, as it has been, in experiments in the theory of government.

§ 990. But the duty of supporting religion, and especially the Christian religion, is very different from the right to force the consciences of other men, or to punish them for worshipping God in the manner, which, they believe, their accountability to him requires. It has been truly said, that “religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be dictated only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” Mr. Locke himself, who did not doubt the right of government to interfere in matters of religion, and especially to encourage Christianity, has at the same time expressed his opinion of the right of private judgment, and liberty of conscience, in a manner becoming his character, as a sincere friend of civil and religious liberty. “No man, or society of men,” says he, “have any authority to impose their opinions or interpretations on any other, the meanest Christian; since, in matters of religion, every man must know, and believe, and give an account for himself.” The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God, and cannot be encroached upon by human authority, without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural, as well as of revealed religion.

§ 991. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus sought to cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and the power of subverting the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. The history of the parent country had afforded the most solemn warnings and melancholy instructions on this head; and even New-England, the land of the persecuted puritans, as well as other colonies, where the Church of England had maintained its superiority, had furnished a chapter, as full of dark bigotry and intolerance, as any, which could be found to disgrace the pages of foreign annals. Apostacy, heresy, and nonconformity have been standard crimes for public appeals, to kindle the flames of persecution, and apologize for the most atrocious triumphs over innocence and virtue.

§ 992. It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity, of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship. (1)

This is a far cry from what is taught in our schools today and insisted upon by many a so-called modern expert who collectively labor – it seems – for a cause the very opposite of the Founder’s original intent – and while so doing, taking aim at, indeed making into PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE, free religious expression in public life. Such speech – consistent with the very Nature of man as a spiritual being – was supposed to be protected as a God-given, Inalienable Right, not crushed with the iron fist of socialism, humanism, and atheism! – And as to religion, in general, as Story notes, it was to be encouraged. The First Amendment then being a legal written check upon Congress, a legal prohibition if you will, on passing ANY bill—ANY bill into law that would interfere with this free expression in ANY forum (public or private) period. —And again, a prohibition against any law that might tend to hinder the prosperity of religion in general. Finally, as to the Establishment Clause, it had one clear purpose, and ONE ONLY, being a prohibition against a national church—avoiding that great evil and enemy to true religion and civic virtue.


Footnote: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; with a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States, before the Adoption of the Constitution. Abridged by the Author, for the Use of Colleges and High Schools (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, and Company/Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Co., 1833), pp. iii-viii, 693-703.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

He that planted the Vine—Samuel Adams


He that planted the Vine—Samuel Adams

Samuel AdamsTHEY WERE BELIEVERS, SAMUEL ADAMS

To G W. (of London), Boston, November 13 1765

Sir

At the request of Mr J. M. I have joined with T. C. Esquire in a Letter to you which goes by this Conveyance. I have long been convinced of your Good Will to Mankind & your particular Regards for New England. The free Access which I am informed you have with some eminent Personages, may put it in your Power to do us Offices of singular kindness. New England has had the Misfortune of having many Enemies, but He that planted the Vine, seems hitherto to have had a watchful Eye over it. It must be confessed we are greatly degenerated, may the Head of the Church hasten the happy Time of reformation. …

Samuel Adams


Source: Samuel Adams Papers, Volume I, p. 35. Spelling modernized by The Moral Liberal. Emphasis added.


THEY WERE BELIEVERS is a project of Steve Farrell and The Moral Liberal. Copyright © 2014 Steve Farrell and The Moral Liberal.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

Founders Wanted Christian Soldiers


Founders Wanted Christian Soldiers

revolutionary_war_soldier_125192155American Minute with Bill Federer

After having the Declaration of Independence read to his troops, General George Washington issued the order, July 9, 1776:

“Commanding officers of each regiment are directed to procure Chaplains…persons of good Characters and exemplary lives – To see that all inferior officers and soldiers pay them a suitable respect and attend carefully upon religious exercises.

The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger –

The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country…

The peace and safety of his Country depends (under God) solely on the success of our arms.”

On May 2, 1778, General George Washington issued the order to his troops at Valley Forge:

“The Commander-in-Chief directs that Divine service be performed every Sunday at 11 o’clock, in each Brigade which has a Chaplain.

Those Brigades which have none will attend the places of worship nearest to them. It is expected that officers of all ranks will, by their attendance, set an example for their men.

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion.

To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian.”

On November 15, 1862, President Lincoln ordered:

“The discipline and character of the national forces should not suffer nor the cause they defend be imperiled by the profanation of the day or name of the Most High…’At this time of public distress,’ adopting the words of Washington in 1776, ‘men may find enough to do in the service of God and their country without abandoning themselves to vice and immorality…’”

Lincoln added:

“…The first general order issued by the Father of his Country after the Declaration of Independence indicates the spirit in which our institutions were founded and should ever be defended:

‘The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.’”

President Benjamin Harrison ordered, June 7, 1889:

“In November, 1862, President Lincoln quoted the words of Washington to sustain his own views, and announced in a general order that –

‘The President, Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, desires and enjoins the orderly observance of the Sabbath by the officers and men in the military and naval service.

The importance for man and beast of the prescribed weekly rest, the sacred rights of Christian soldiers and sailors, a becoming deference to the best sentiment of a Christian people, and a due regard for the Divine Will demand that Sunday labor in the Army and Navy be reduced to the measure of strict necessity’…”

President Benjamin Harrison

“…To recall the kindly and considerate spirit of the orders issued by these great men in the most trying times of our history, and to promote contentment and efficiency, the President directs that Sunday morning inspection will be merely of the dress and general appearance.”

President Woodrow Wilson gave the order, January 20, 1918:

“The President, Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, following the reverent example of his predecessors, desires and enjoins the orderly observance of the Sabbath by the officers and men in the military and naval service of the United States.

The importance for man and beast of the prescribed weekly rest, the sacred rights of Christian soldiers and sailors, a becoming deference to the best sentiment of a Christian people, and a due regard for the Divine Will demand that Sunday labor in the Army and Navy be reduced to the measure of strict necessity.

Such an observance of Sunday is dictated by the best traditions of our people and by the convictions of all who look to Divine Providence for guidance and protection,

and, in repeating in this order the language of President Lincoln, the President in confident that he is speaking alike to the hearts and to the consciences of those under his authority.”

In 1947, the U.S. Corp of Cadets required:

“Attendance at chapel is part of a cadet’s training; no cadet will be exempted. Each cadet will receive religious training in one of the three particular faiths: Protestant, Catholic or Jewish.”

In 1949, the U.S. Naval Academy required:

“All Midshipmen, except those on authorized outside church parties, shall attend Sunday services in the chapel.”

On AUGUST 17, 1955, Dwight Eisenhower authorized the code of conduct for U.S. soldiers, which stated:

“I serve in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense…

If captured…I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy…

I will never forget I am an American fighting man, responsible for my actions and dedicated to the principles which made my country free.

I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.”

President Dwight Eisenhower stated December 24, 1953, lighting the National Christmas Tree:

“George Washington long ago rejected exclusive dependence upon mere materialistic values.

In the bitter and critical winter at Valley Forge, when the cause of liberty was so near defeat, his recourse was sincere and earnest prayer…

As religious faith is the foundation of free government, so is prayer an indispensable part of that faith.”

Dwight Eisenhower broadcast from the White House for the American Legion’s Back-to-God, February 7, 1954:

“As a former soldier, I am delighted that our veterans are sponsoring a movement to increase our awareness of God in our daily lives.

In battle, they learned a great truth – that there are no atheists in the foxholes.

They know that in time of test and trial, we instinctively turn to God for new courage.”

Dwight Eisenhower stated at the opening of the White House Conference of Mayors, December 14, 1953:

“I want to point out something about fighting – about war…

The winning of war – the effectiveness in such things – is in the heart, in the determination, in the faith. It is in our beliefs in our country, in our God, everything that goes to make up America.”

Dwight Eisenhower, February 20, 1955, stated for the American Legion Back-To-God Program:

“The Founding Fathers…recognizing God as the author of individual rights, declared that the purpose of Government is to secure those rights…

But in many lands the State claims to be the author of human rights…

If the State gives rights, it can – and inevitably will – take away those rights.

Without God, there could be no American form of Government, nor an American way of life.

Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first – the most basic – expression of Americanism.

Thus the Founding Fathers saw it, and thus, with God’s help, it will continue to be…

Veterans realize, perhaps more clearly than others, the prior place that Almighty God holds in our national life.”

 


Bill FedererThe Moral Liberal Contributing Editor,William J. Federer, is the bestselling author of “Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion,” and numerous other books. A frequent radio and television guest, his daily American Minute is broadcast nationally via radio, television, and Internet. Check out all of Bill’s bookshere.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

James Wilson’s Lectures on Law


James Wilson’s Lectures on Law

James_Wilson American Minute with Bill Federer

He was one of six founding fathers to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

President Washington appointed him to be a Justice on the Supreme Court.

His name was James Wilson.

Born in Scotland, James Wilson was one of the first to argue against British dominance.

In 1774, James Wilson wrote “Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament,” reasoning that since the colonies had no representation in Parliament, the Parliament had no authority over the colonies.

In 1775, James Wilson was commissioned as a Colonel and by the end of the Revolution he was promoted to the rank of Brigadier General of the Pennsylvania State Militia.

One of the most educated and prominent lawyers in America, James Wilson was chosen as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, where he spoke 168 times.

After the Federalist Papers, James Wilson’s speech in the statehouse yard, October 6, 1787, was the most influential in convincing the States of ratify the U.S. Constitution.

The first law professor of the University of Pennsylvania, James Wilson wrote in his Lectures on Law, 1789-91, that all law comes from God, being divided into four categories:

Law Eternal,”

Law Celestial,”

Laws of Nature,”

and:

Law…communicated to us by reason and conscience…has been called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed…”

James Wilson continued:

But it should always be remembered, that this law, natural or revealed…flows from the same divine source; it is the law of God…

Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine.”

James Wilson concluded:

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.”

To interpret statutes, James Wilson wrote:

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.”

James Wilson described the “Will of God” as the:

“…efficient cause of moral obligation – of the eminent distinction between right and wrong…(and therefore the) supreme law…

(It is revealed) by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures.”

At the age of 55, James Wilson died AUGUST 21, 1798.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recorded in 1824:

The late Judge James Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia…for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions…

In his Course of Lectures (3d Vol. of his Works, 122), he states that…’Christianity is part of the common-law.’”

James Wilson remarked at Pennsylvania’s ratifying convention, November 26, 1787:

Governments, in general, have been the result of force, of fraud, and accident.

After a period of 6,000 years has elapsed since the creation, the United States exhibit to the world the first instance…of a nation… assembling voluntarily… and deciding calmly concerning that system of government under which they would wish that they and their posterity should live.”

Daniel Webster made a similar statement in 1802:

We live under the only government that ever existed which was framed by the unrestrained and deliberate consultations of the people.

Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in 6,000 years cannot be expected to happen often.”

Yale President Ezra Stile had stated May 8, 1783:

Most of the States of all ages…have been founded in rapacity, usurpation and injustice…

The military history of all nations, being but a description of the wars and invasions of the mutual robbers and devastators of the human race…

All the forms of civil polity have been tried by mankind, except one: and that seems to have been referred in Providence to be realized in America.”

John Adams wrote in his notes of A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, February 1765:

I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.”

John Jay, the First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, stated September 8, 1777:

The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of…choosing the forms of government under which they should live.

All other constitutions have derived their existence from violence or accidental circumstances.”

Poet Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote:

America…appears like a last effort of divine Providence in behalf of the human race.”

President Calvin Coolidge stated in 1924:

The history of government on this earth has been almost entirely…rule of force held in the hands of a few.

Under our Constitution, America committed itself to power in the hands of the people.”

President Millard Fillmore stated in 1852:

Our free institutions…were planted in the free charters of self-government under which the English colonies grew up…

European nations have had no such training for self-government, and every effort to establish it by bloody revolutions has been, and must without that preparation continue to be, a failure.”

Theodore Roosevelt stated October 24, 1903:

In no other place and at no other time has the experiment of government of the people, by the people, for the people, been tried on so vast a scale as here in our own country.”

President Ronald Reagan stated in 1961:

In this country of ours took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world’s history.

Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another.

Here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relation to man…the founding fathers established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God-given right and ability to determine our own destiny.”

 


Bill Federer The Moral Liberal Contributing Editor,William J. Federer, is the bestselling author of “Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion,” and numerous other books. A frequent radio and television guest, his daily American Minute is broadcast nationally via radio, television, and Internet. Check out all of Bill’s bookshere.


If you haven’t yet, invest in one or Bill Federer’s 

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

Immigrants Not Taught Freedom Of Religion


Immigrants Not Taught Freedom Of Religion

schlafly 2 BY PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY

Liberals keep trying to sneak political correctness into America any way they can. We should not be surprised that they have targeted the study materials for the civics portion of the naturalization exam. Study materials have now changed references to our First Amendment Freedom of Religion with the weaker and more politically correct expression Freedom of Worship. While the difference may seem small, the implications are huge.

Even foreign dictatorships have no problem with offering their citizens Freedom of Worship. This is because Freedom of Worship implies only the freedom to express personal religious beliefs when your are inside your church after you have closed the door, or are within the confines of government-approved places of worship for government-approved meetings and events. This inaccurate and very limited view of religious liberty teaches that faith should be a private affair confined to designated areas. They want people to think that their freedom ends whenever they leave the four walls of their church. This certainly is not how our Founders envisioned the intrinsic constitutional rights of all Americans. Our American right to the Free Expression of Religion allows real freedom in choosing where and how we express our faith. Our First Amendment does not allow excessive government regulation about Freedom of Religion.

Unfortunately, the official study materials for the naturalization exam do not reflect this right as it is given in the Constitution. It is especially important that those preparing for and taking the U.S. naturalization exam have an accurate understanding of the foundational freedoms that they will enjoy as citizens of the United States. Many public schools are also starting to embrace this watered-down version of our most basic right, in order to indoctrinate the next generation with a distorted view of American government. It’s time to stand up to these attacks and make sure that our children know that our U.S. Constitution guarantees the fundamental right of Freedom of Religion.

 


We recommend Who Killed the American Family?


Contributing Editor, Phyllis Schlafly, is the Founder and President of Eagle Forum, a national radio show host, and a best-selling author.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

Nuclear Physicist Declares: ‘Science Will Never Contradict The Bible’


Nuclear Physicist Declares: ‘Science Will Never Contradict The Bible’

Posted: 05 Aug 2015 04:35 PM PDT

evo

From christiannews.net

STELLENBOSCH, South Africa – An accomplished nuclear physicist has recently expressed outspoken support for the Genesis creation account, arguing that the evolutionary worldview “fails dismally” in its description of scientific realty.

Dr. Brandon van der Ventel is a nuclear physicist with a Ph.D. from South Africa’s Stellenbosch University, where he currently teaches theoretical nuclear physics. Van der Ventel’s specialties include biological systems, physics education, and computational physics.

In an interview with Christian News Network, van der Ventel explained why—as a physicist—he firmly believes the literal, historical interpretation of the Bible’s creation account. The theory of evolution, he explained, is scientifically unsubstantiated.

“The final arbiter of any theory must be based on the strength of its description of physical reality,” he said. “It is in this respect that the theory of evolution fails dismally.”

Not only is the second law of thermodynamics “a powerful argument against chemical evolution,” van der Ventel stated, but the very dating methods evolutionists cite are mostly supported by assumptions—not physics.

“Physics can also play a role when it comes to the sticky question of dating certain objects,” he noted. “It is important to understand that dinosaur bones, for example, are not found with a time stamp attached to them. Every publicized age is based on certain assumptions and conflicting radioactive dates are commonplace.”

On the contrary, the Bible’s creation account logically explains both physical reality and the nature of God, van der Ventel said.

“The creation account in Genesis establishes a number of great truths which form part of the Christian worldview,” he stated. “It points to God as the all-mighty Creator: a timeless, spaceless, immaterial and personal Being who is both the explanation and cause of the universe.”

The South African physicist further told Christian News Network that Genesis must be taken at face value, or else the rest of the Bible is compromised.

“At which chapter in Genesis do we start believing God’s revelation and the fact that all Scripture is God-breathed?” he asked. “It is important to understand that the denial of the Genesis account of creation is a direct result of the theory of evolution which posits a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.”

“The denial of the Genesis account is not a matter to be taken lightly by Christians,” he continued. “If the biblical record is not true, then we are left with naturalism and atheism, of which the consequences are truly horrific.”

Van der Ventel asserted that “all scientific evidence has always and will always support the Bible.”

“Science will never contradict the Bible,” he said. “The reason is very simple: the Author of Scripture is also the Creator. That is what we as Christians should believe and promulgate at all times. It is a false dichotomy to think that the Bible and Science are in opposition. Even Christians fall into this mode of thinking due to the vicious and unrelenting propaganda.”

As a scientist, van der Ventel encourages young Christians to “enter the scientific field since university campuses are hotbeds for evolutionary propaganda.”

“By arming oneself with scientific material it is possible to engage non-believers in a systematic and technical manner,” he advised. “Christian parents should equip themselves and their children since television programs such as the History Channel, National Geographic or Discovery World shamelessly push their evolutionary agenda.”

“It is clear that if we are to demolish arguments (2 Corinthians 10:5), then equipping ourselves is paramount,” he concluded. “All believers should study Christian apologetics, since it will not only strengthen your own faith but also motivate you to boldly proclaim the Gospel in a secular society where the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Christ, are routinely denied.”

As previously reported, a respected molecular geneticist told Christian News Network last month that recent findings in the field of genetics confirm the Bible’s teachings that all humans descended from an original couple created by God.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

Music: What does God think


Music: What does God think

The charismatic infection of a Baptist church rarely occurs as a frontal assault. Usually charismatics are able to infiltrate a church one by one, and often hide their true beliefs, or at least some of them, until they are established within the congregation.
Sometimes, charismatics, and their principles, are hidden within a “Trojan Horse.” One of the most effective charismatic Trojan Horses is that of Christian contemporary music.
We should pause here to say that we are not against all Christian contemporary music. The term “contemporary music” refers to any music that is being written today. Some Christian contemporary music is well-composed, with words that are doctrinally correct and that lift the soul to a better understanding of God and Scriptural principles. Such music is quite suitable for worship.
However, much of what is called Christian contemporary music, while being quite contemporary, is not quite Christian, either in music or words, or if Christian in words, so trite as to be both useless in promoting Christian principles and annoying to the ear accustomed to good music. Much of Christian contemporary music is not suitable for worship in a Baptist church that honors the Lord and desires to do His will.
The problem many Baptist churches face is that some members, who either have no understanding of the place of music in our church services or who are simply carnal, want the wrong kind of contemporary music to be used in the church services. The music they favor lends itself to doctrinal laxness, an ecumenical spirit, and opens the door for charismatics, who thrive in such an atmosphere. Too many Baptists pastors, having little or no background in music, do not appreciate the dangers of the wrong kind of music in the church services.

While the author is primarily a theologian, he also has more training in music than the average pastor. In fact, for the first three years of his college experience he majored in music, currently plays four instruments, and has been involved in both symphony orchestras and bands. Further, he was music director of two churches of good size, so he feels qualified to write briefly on this subject.

The Definition and Composition of Music

The best definition this author has ever seen of music is this: Music is the tonal expression of emotion.
Through music, we express our many moods and feelings. Music can therefore be used to inspire patriotism, express love of God, build loyalty to the church, and express the true love between a man and a woman. It can also be used to inspire rebellion in youth, instill a desire for illicit drugs, incite to sexual promiscuity, and entice to a favorable view of false religions.
What a piece of music accomplishes depends on its composition. The composition of a piece of music shows the intent of the composer, for the elements of the composition are all designed to produce an emotional response in the listener. The elements of music composition are:
1. Melody – the personality of the piece by which it is identified.
2. Harmony – that which provides artistic interest by supporting the melody.
3. Rhythm – a servant to both melody and harmony, it enables the music to flow smoothly from one measure to another, and gives pulse to the music. Good rhythm is largely unnoticed and essentially regular.
4. Dynamics – the loudness and softness of the piece.
5. Resolution – this gives a sense of finality to the phrases and to the piece as a whole.
Some may ask, “What forms of music are legitimate forms of music?” We would have to answer: All forms, for all forms of music express emotion through the elements of their composition. Therefore, there is no form of music that is not legitimate music.
This does not mean, however, that all music is suitable for either Christian worship or even Christian consumption, for there is some music has a purpose that is contrary to Biblical truth.
“Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up.” – Daniel 3:4-5. Here we have music whose expressed purpose was to promote idolatry.
Take note of this: There is no such thing as “neutral” music. Music can express love, loyalty, compassion, mercy, faith, adoration, anger, jealousy, malice, lust, hatred, carelessness, and any other of the full range of human emotions. Further, music can be used to manipulate the emotions and express morality, or the lack thereof.
Let us spend a moment on what we said above about music being able to manipulate the emotions. Some people say, “Music doesn’t affect me.” However, such people are only self-deceived. Ever notice how that in finer restaurants the music is soft, slow, and relaxing? Such restaurants try to promote the relaxed enjoyment of the meal. On the other hand, in fast food restaurants the music is usually loud, fast, and jumpy. The whole idea of the music in those restaurants is for you to “gobble and go.” The Nazi soldiers of World War II Germany were single-minded in the dedication to their nation and formidable on the battlefield. Why was this? If you ever listened to a German march you would know.

Music in the Bible

In the Old Testament, God commanded His people to worship Him with both vocal and instrumental music, “Sing praises to the LORD.” – Psalm 9:11. “Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings.”- Psalm 33:2.
In the New Testament, the churches were instructed to use music as part of their teaching ministry. “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”- Colossians 3:16.
The God who instructed us to use music in our churches also told us what kind of music is suitable. Both in the passage above and in Ephesians we have three types of music that are approved of God. “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.”- Ephesians 5:19. Let us examine briefly the types of music God approves:
1. Psalms – these are Scriptures set to music. An example of this is the song, “Seek Ye First,” which is in the hymnal In Spirit and In Truth, published by the American Baptist Association:
Seek ye first the kingdom of God,
And His righteousness,
And all these things shall be added unto you!
Alleluia, alleluia!
2. Hymns – these are songs of praise and adoration. Songs like, “Holy, Holy, Holy,” “The Spacious Firmament,” “Praise to the Lord, the Almighty,” and “Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise.” By the way, hymns are excellent vehicles for teaching doctrine, especially those in the above-mentioned hymnal, and children who are raised on them love to sing them when they are teenagers.
3. Spiritual Songs – these are gospel songs and songs of testimony and exhortation. “There is Power in the Blood,” “My Faith Has Found a Resting Place,” “Since Jesus Came Into My Heart,” and “Stand Up, Stand Up For Jesus,” are examples of spiritual songs.

Forms of Music Not Suitable for Worship

Any of the forms of rock music are not suitable for worship in the churches of the Lord Jesus Christ. We say they are not suitable because of origin, composition, and effect on the listener.
Rock music has its origin in African tribal music designed to promote fertility rites and idol worship. When brought to America, it was mingled with jazz, blues, and swing music to produce what we now have as modern rock music. With such evil influences and evil associations, you would think that no Christian would want anything to do with it. Still, there are many who see nothing wrong with using rock music in church, especially to attract young people. What they don’t realize is that they are using the same music form that Satan uses to promote pre-marital sex, rebellion, and drug use among teens and pre-teens. And let us say something about using worldly music to attract young people to our churches. This author is old enough to remember when hippies were in style, and when their counter-culture was somewhat popular. Some Baptist churches, in order to reach the young people of their day, resorted to aping the hippie movement. It was thought that if we approached hippies using their language (“God can take care of your hang-ups”), music, and fashions, that we could reach them with the gospel and make good Baptist young people out of them. Christian coffee houses became numerous, and some churches even substituted “right on” for “amen” in their services. However, the results were, sadly, not what many wanted. Instead of winning the hippies to Christ, the hippies won many of the Baptist young people over to their philosophies and lifestyle. And why not? They were already half-way to the counter culture in their own churches. Have we learned anything from that experience of 40 years ago?
The composition of rock music is easy to spot. Rock music consists of a driving beat with the accent on the upbeat (backbeat) wedded with repetitive chord patterns in the harmony.
Remember that, earlier in this chapter, we said that the beat or rhythm is largely unnoticed in good music. Not so with rock music. The beat is upfront and in your face. It is designed to get people up and dancing, to move faster, drive faster, and eat faster. It produces a hyped-up, aggressive feeling in the listener. Good music has its accent on the downbeat. By accenting the upbeat, or backbeat, the effects of the driving beat are enhanced. Add to that the repetitive chord patterns, and you have a form of music that is both hypnotic and that jangles the nervous system. Rock music produces sensual feelings and an attitude of rebellion against authority.
When rock music is wedded to Christian words, the music contradicts the message. Having said that, much of the contemporary Christian rock music contains words that are contrary to sound doctrine and promote a self-centered, experience-oriented view. Because of its origin, composition, and effect, rock music is not suitable for Christian worship.
You will find that people who are regular listeners of contemporary Christian rock music are shallow in doctrine, rebellious to church authority, and interdenominational in view. These are not things we want to encourage in our churches. Yet these are exactly the characteristics of most charismatics. Contemporary Christian rock music prepares Baptist people to accept a charismatic mind-set, and sets the stage for charismatic infiltration into our churches.
Other forms of music that are not suitable for worship include jazz, blues, and swing, all of which promote a sensual mood. In our churches we want music that appeals, not to man’s base nature, but to the new nature that Christ provides.

Forms of Music Suitable for Worship

For the spiritual health of our churches we must have the following:
1. Music that is well-written, using all of its elements to create a suitable frame for the worship og God.
2. Music that matches, and bears out the mood of words that are theologically sound and spiritually uplifting.
3. Music that enhances the preaching ministry. Church music that does not prepare the people for the preaching of the Word of God is a waste of time. Music that prepares people for the ministry of the Word is most profitable, [NOTE: Too often I have heard this from Baptists: “The music service was so powerful, that we just kept on with the music and didn’t even get to the preaching.” What a tragedy! The Bible does not say “So then faith cometh by music,” but, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” – Romans 10:17. I would have a hard time believing that the Holy Ghost, who was the active agent in the inspiration of the Word of God, would lead us to leave off its preaching. God’s pastors need to strongly stand against anything that would downgrade the importance of the preaching of the Bible to God’s people and to those who are lost.]
Forms of music that accomplish the three items above are suitable for worship. Such music will promote doctrinal fidelity and spirituality in our churches.

The above: “The Trojan Horse at the door of your Baptist Church,” is chapter V of the book: “Wildfire, Tongues, Healings and the Charismatic Movement,” written by David E. Gonnella, (Pensacola: West Florida Baptist Institute Press, 2009).

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

THE SUBMARINE Church


THE SUBMARINE Church
Parson to Person
A minister once described his church as a submarine church. Perplexed, his listener asked what he meant. He replied with the following description. “We have submerged ourselves in our own little sea. We don’t like the trouble and misery that is so abundant all around our community and nation. So we decided to submerge ourselves to be safe from it all. So far, we are holding a record for staying submerged the longest. Once, A former pastor peered through the periscope and suggested the church should surface and engage the enemy. He was immediately tried for mutiny and dismissed. In time the air got really stale, but a committee was appointed to study it, and they concluded that that stale air was really good for you. So, the crew went through a well rehearsed routine regularly. They overhauled the kitchen, took stock of all the ammo on board although none of it was ever used. When another pastor tried to bring the vessel to surface, the entire crew got the bends, so continued submersion was necessary. The captain’s last log read, ‘submerged and continuing to practice drills. An enemy was sighted, but the entire crew demanded that there be no engagement, rather they should dive a little deeper to be in a safe zone.’ ” Today’s churches would much rather sing “Hold the Fort” than to “Storm the fort.” Sadly, the description of a submarine church is altogether to close to home for several. The Lord wants His lights to shine: to bear influence on the lives of others rather than melt into society unnoticed and be content with marginalization. So, in the words of the psalmist, “Let the redeemed of the Lord say so!” Think about it! When is the last time you took the initiative in a one on one conversation to let that person know that you love the Lord, and that the Lord desires that everyone should believe in Him? If you have not done this in a long time, try it really soon. Even if you fumble, you will be so glad you tried, and you will do better, and be more comfortable with it, next time. Each of us who knows the Lord is a lighted candle. The question is: will we let it shine in the candlestick or put in under a bushel (submarine)? The answer is obvious! If we really do have a one on one relationship with the Savior, we will burn inside to have others know the love, peace, joy, life and hope that we have.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary