"GOSPEL PREACHING IN THE FIRST CENTURY"
Paul In The Synagogue At Antioch
INTRODUCTION
1. Thus far we have considered five examples of gospel preaching in the first century...
a. Three by the apostle Peter
b. Two by the evangelist Philip
2. From the preaching of Peter and Philip, we turn now to the preaching of Paul...
a. Formerly known as Saul, who persecuted the church - Ac 8:1,3; 9:1-2
b. Who became known as the apostle to the Gentiles - Ac 9:15; Ro 11:13
[We shall consider three examples of Paulà preaching, starting with an
opportunity to preach to both the Jews and the Gentiles in the synagogue at Antioch...]
I. THE SETTING
A. IN ANTIOCH OF PISIDIA...
1. Paul was on his 1st missionary journey - Ac 13:13
2. Arriving in Antioch, he attended the synagogue on the Sabbath
- Ac 13:14
3. This became his evangelistic method for reaching Jews - cf. Ac 17:1-3
B. IN THE SYNAGOGUE...
1. Invited by the rulers of the synagogue to speak to the people
- Ac 13:15
2. His religious background may have been well-known - cf. Ac 22:3-5; Ga 1:13-14
3. Paul accepts the invitation to speak to both Jews and
God-fearers - Ac 13:16
[As recorded by Luke, Paul stood, motioned with his hands, and then
began to speak to both Jews and God-fearers (perhaps proselytes)...]
II. THE SERMON
A. PAUL REVIEWS THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL...
1. Their deliverance from Egypt and reception of Canaan - Ac 13:16-19
2. The period of the Judges and the beginning of their Kings - Ac 13:20-21
3. The promise to David, fulfilled with the coming of Jesus - Ac 13:22-25
B. PAUL PROCLAIMS THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST...
1. Addressed to both Jews and God-fearers - Ac 13:26
2. The death of Jesus by the rulers in Jerusalem - Ac 13:27-29
3. The resurrection of Jesus by God, witnessed by many - Ac 13:30-31
4. These are glad tidings, foretold by prophecy - Ac 13:32-35; cf. Ps 2:7; Isa 55:3; Ps 16:10
5. For David saw corruption, while He who was raised did not - Ac 13:36-37
C. PAUL OFFERS SALVATION WITH A WARNING...
1. Preaching forgiveness of sins through Jesus, not the Law - Ac 13:38-39
2. Warning them not to believe, in the words of Habakkuk - Ac 13:40-41; Hab 1:5
D. THE RESPONSE...
1. Begged by the Gentiles to preach the same to them the next Sabbath - Ac 13:42
2. Many Jews and devout proselytes encouraged to continue in the grace of God - Ac 13:43
E. THE FOLLOWING SABBATH...
1. Almost the whole city gathered to hear - Ac 13:44
2. Envious Jews contradicted and blasphemed the things spoken by Paul - Ac 13:45
3. Having judged themselves unworthy of eternal life, Paul turned
to the Gentiles - Ac 13:46-47
4. Gentiles were glad and glorified the Word - Ac 13:48
5. "And as many as had been appointed (ordained, KJV) to eternal
life believed" - ibid.
a. "There is no countenance here for the absolutum decretum of
the Calvinists, since ver. 46 had already shown that the
Jews had acted through their own choice...the Jews as a
nation had been ordained to eternal life - they had rejected
this election - but those who believed amongst the Gentiles
were equally ordained by God to eternal life, and it was in
accordance with His divine appointment that the Apostles had
turned to them. Some take the word as if middle, not passive:
"as many as had set themselves unto eternal life," and in
support of this Rendall refers to 1Co 16:15..."
- ExpositorÃs Greek Testament
b. "The verb tatto or tasso signifies to place, set, order,
appoint, dispose; hence it has been considered here as
implying the disposition or readiness of mind of several
persons in the congregation, such as the religious proselytes
mentioned Ac 13:43, who possessed the reverse of the
disposition of those Jews who spake against those things,
contradicting and blaspheming, Ac 13:45." - Adam Clarke
c. "As many as were disposed to eternal life, as many as had
concern about their eternal state, and aimed to make sure of
eternal life, believed in Christ." - Matthew Henry
CONCLUSION
1. In preaching the gospel in the synagogue at Antioch...
a. Paul proclaimed the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ - Ac 13:26-30
b. Eyewitness testimony and OT prophecy were used to make his case
- Ac 13:31-37
c. He taught faith in Jesus as the way to forgiveness of sins, not the Law - Ac 13:38-39
d. One makes themselves unworthy of eternal life by rejecting the Word - Ac 13:46
e. If you are disposed to receiving eternal life, you will believe in Christ! - Ac 13:48
2. In making personal application, you might well ask yourself...
a. Do you accept as truth the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
b. If not, have you seriously examined the eyewitness testimony and OT prophecy?
c. Do you believe that Jesus is the only way to forgiveness of sins?
d. Or have you made yourself unworthy of eternal life by rejecting the gospel?
e. I pray that you are disposed to receive eternal life!
If you are willing to listen to the Gospel and are disposed to receiving
eternal life, you will gladly glorify the Word by obeying it, and
continue in the grace of God through faithful service...
10/2/15
From Mark Copeland... "GOSPEL PREACHING IN THE FIRST CENTURY" Paul In The Synagogue At Antioch
Natural Attenuation: Proof of Divine Design by James Spencer, M.S., P.G.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=49
Natural Attenuation: Proof of Divine Design
by | James Spencer, M.S., P.G. |
[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by one of A.P.’s auxiliary staff scientists. James Spencer holds a B.S. degree in Environmental Geology and an M.S. degree in Geology from the University of Mississippi. He has 24 years of technical services in the geosciences, including six years with the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, as well as 18 years with private environmental consulting firms. Accredited as a Professional Geologist in three states (Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arkansas), Mr. Spencer holds membership in the Association of Environmental and Engineering Geologists. He presently serves as Senior Hydrogeologist with EcoScience Resource Group.]
As a working hydrogeologist, I am constantly reminded of God’s handiwork. From the stratigraphic layers examined during drilling operations, to the calculation of groundwater velocities and contaminant transport based on complex governing equations, it is evident that a pre-planned, intentional system is in place. Evolutionists would have us believe that these natural processes have occurred by chance. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that these systems are the work of God. I am reminded of Deuteronomy 3:24—“O Lord God, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness and Your mighty hand, for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do anything like Your works and Your mighty deeds?”
GROUNDWATER & REACTIVE TRANSPORT MODELING FOR REMEDIAL DESIGN
In 1984, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) named a hazardous waste site in the state of Louisiana to the National Priority List (NPL). It was estimated at the time that the site held approximately eight million cubic feet of contaminated materials. A computer model was constructed for the site that would simulate the contaminant movement in the subsurface. Modeling efforts resulted in a successful negotiation with the EPA for monitored natural attenuation as the accepted remediation alternative. (“Natural attenuation” refers to the reduction, weakening, and eventual elimination of toxic substances in the soil and groundwater by nature’s own processes.) ThisEPA determination was a milestone for the site. Previously a pump-and-treat system, which was based on an initial groundwater model developed to simulate hydraulic containment, had cost millions of dollars to install, operate, and maintain. A carbon absorption system was used to treat the contaminated water recovered. By July 1998, over 170 wells were operational.
During this time of recovery well installation in the mid-1990s, field investigations continued in the direction the contaminants were anticipated to flow. Laboratory analysis of water samples discovered the presence of vinyl chloride (VC)—a compound not present in the parent (original waste) material. At the time, the presence of vinyl chloride confused investigators. After consultation with other governmental agencies, it was assumed that degradation (chemical breakdown) of the parent material was producing vinyl chloride as a daughter product. However, the driving agent of this degradation process, known as reductive dechlorination, was not fully understood. Natural attenuation was discussed, but was not yet an accepted environmental remedial alternative (i.e., clean-up solution) with the regulatory agencies. Change came with the release of a 1999 directive by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), titled “Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites.”
As research continued at this site (and others throughout the United States), the degradation process became better understood. Reductive dechlorination is a biological process that is used to describe certain types of biodegradation of chlorinated solvents in groundwater. For example, tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), and other chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in groundwater, can be biodegraded by naturally occurring anaerobic bacteria (i.e., bacteria that are able to live without oxygen), most commonly of the genera dehalococcoides through a sequential degradation process. PCE degrades to TCE, TCE to dichloroethene (DCE), DCE to vinyl chloride (VC), and VC to ethene. This biodegradation occurs when anaerobic bacteria present in the contaminated site take electrons from organic compounds (called “electron donors”) and produce H2. The dechlorinating bacteria use the electron in the H2 to replace a chlorine atom.
Scientists wanted to substantiate these degradation processes, as well as develop rate constants for the reactive transport model (a computer model to simulate the transport of chemical compounds in groundwater, including the degradation of parent compounds and generation of daughter compounds). With the goal of observing the potential for natural attenuation of the chlorinated ethanes and ethenes present at the site, hydrogeologists conducted microcosm experiments to determine both the pathways and rates of contaminant transformation under natural conditions. The results indicated that the microbial population necessary to dechlorinate contaminants was naturally present in the site sediments. With this fact in hand, researchers could now define the degradation pathway.
Researches then developed a three-dimensional reactive transport model (RT3D—a multi-species reactive flow and transport simulation computer software) for the site, utilizing the results of the microcosm experiments to develop a site-specific reaction package to simulate the degradation processes. The model was calibrated to current conditions in order to make future predictions. Results indicated that the contaminant plume would stabilize over time and no sensitive receptors (i.e., drinking water aquifer, surface water body, etc.) would be impacted. Consequently, the EPA approved monitored natural attenuation as the selected remedial alternative.
Microbial Population
Researchers conducted laboratory experiments in an attempt to identify, define, and quantify the microbial population present within the site subsurface (see Bae, et al., 2006; Bowman, et al., 2006). These efforts resulted in the identification of several unique microscopic bacteria, known as 16S rRNAgene sequences, that are closely related to Dehalococcoides ethenogenes. In addition, two new anaerobic bacterial strains were isolated and identified for the first time, and subsequently named after the site. The data demonstrated that a large number of novel bacteria were present in groundwater within the source zone, and the population appeared to contain bacterial components necessary to carry out reductive dechlorination.
Evolution of Thought
As noted in the above discussion, the “expert” thought has evolved from a pump-and-treat-solution to monitored natural attenuation as the accepted remedial alternative at this site. A computer model to simulate the degradation processes was developed for the site to simulate groundwater flow and contaminant transport with a site-specific reaction package. With a better understanding of the degradation processes and bacteria populations providing the driving force, natural attenuation has become an accepted remedial alternative at this site and many contaminated sites throughout the country. Despite increased understanding, scientists have yet to provide a complete and adequate definition of the microbial populations naturally present at all remedial sites.
BUT WHERE DID IT COME FROM?
To recap, in order to develop a computer model to simulate groundwater flow and contaminant transport, scientists must come to a proper understanding of the geologic, hydrologic, and biological processes occurring at the site. This understanding is fundamental when the goal is to develop a defensible strategy for monitored natural attenuation for presentation to regulatory agencies. Most importantly, the biologic processes at the Louisiana NPL site have been shown to be active and sufficient for reductive dechlorination of contaminants. But where did these microbial populations come from? Did they evolve to serve this purpose? Impossible, since, in direct contradiction to the evolutionary hypothesis, they would have had to evolve over a short period of time. After all, the contaminants present were not in existence millions of years ago. For example, PCE is a manufactured chemical compound widely used to dry clean fabrics and degrease metals. Michael Faraday first synthesized it in 1821 by heating hexachloroethane until it decomposed into PCE and chlorine. Since evolution cannot account for their presence, where did these microbes come from?
For creationists, the answer is simple and obvious. God created these bacteria. Humans did not create this built-in method of breaking down and neutralizing the artificial/synthetic toxic chemicals introduced by humans into the environment. All the efforts of feeble man to decontaminate the hazardous waste site were secondary, perhaps even superfluous, to the naturally occurring attenuation processes already present in the environment. The only logical explanation is that the Creator of the Earth deliberately embedded restorative properties in the environment in order for it to sustain itself for the Creator’s purpose. Essentially, all we “educated” humans can do is observe, monitor, document, and assign sophisticated jargon to what nature does automatically. God created His earthly creation to be self-sustaining, restorative, and resilient.
BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE
In the beginning, God created the Earth to be inhabited by man, and for man to rule the Earth and its resources (Genesis 1:26-30; Psalm 8:6-8). In addition, God placed within the dynamics of the Earth the processes by which He sustains it. The microbial populations that we scientists are just now identifying, and whose purpose we are just now beginning to understand, were created by God to sustain His creation. It is certainly true that man has made mistakes that have been detrimental to God’s Earth. However, it is also true that God is in control, and no matter what humans do—accidentally or purposefully—that may be harmful to the environment, God will sustain this Earth until it has served His purpose! “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” (Hebrews 11:3).
REFERENCES
Bae, H.S., Moe, W.M., Yan, J., Tiago, I., da Dosta, M.S., and Rainey, F.A. (2006), “Brooklawnia Cerclae Gen. Nov., Sp. Nov., A Propionate-Forming Bacterium Isolated From Chlorosolvent-Contaminated Groundwater,” International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 56:1977-1983.
Bowman, K.S., Moe, W.M, Rash, B.A., Bae, H.S., and Rainey, R.A. (2006), “Bacterial Diversity of an Acidic Louisiana Groundwater Contaminated by Dense Nonaqueous-Phase Liquid Containing Chloroethanes and Other Solvents,” FEMS Microbiology and Ecology, 58:120-133, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
U.S. EPA (1999), “Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites.” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Directive Number 9200 (Washington, D.C.: OSWER).
Motivation: Chimpanzees and Humans by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=268
Motivation: Chimpanzees and Humans
by | Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A. |
In late April 1996, I had the privilege of hearing a speech by Dr. Jane Goodall, the famed animal behaviorist. As you may know, she was a protégée of Louis Leakey who blazed trails for women scientists in the 1960s and achieved considerable recognition for her work on chimpanzees in East Africa. For all that, she has an innocent, soft-spoken charm about her. Most of all, she has a passionate concern for all animals, and for chimpanzees in particular. Although her research continues, she devotes much of her time to the preservation of wild chimp populations. Hunting, diminishing habitat, and the largely illegal live-animal trade have earned these creatures an unenviable place on the Endangered Species list.
Throughout most of her fascinating presentation, Goodall portrayed chimpanzees as intelligent beings, having complex social relations, showing a range of deep emotional states, and making rudimentary tools. In other words, audience members were supposed to get the message that these creatures differed from us only by degree (see Major, 1995, “Do Humans and Apes Differ Only by Degree?”). And, indeed, the audience made the right noises at the sight of an adorable baby chimp playing with its older sibling, and at the less pleasant sight of a grief-stricken juvenile who had lost its aged mother.
Goodall’s plea was quite simple: our sympathy for these animals should motivate us to come to their aid. She barely mentioned the “e” word (evolution, that is), but her approach resembled the appeals of others who would have us respect all individuals within our own species, and other species (especially those closest to us on the putative evolutionary tree), for no other reason than our shared ancestry. Richard Leakey has suggested that our common heritage “is a powerful motivation for reconsidering the blatant inequities in the world” (1981, p. 245).
But is it? Can a belief in the preeminence of chance and natural selection sustain us in our altruism toward chimps? Where, in a naturalistic ethic, is the incentive to avoid apathy? Without the sort of personal involvement enjoyed by Jane Goodall, many people are driven to put their own needs first. Ideally, Christians are motivated by love for God and, yes, fear also of transgressing His commands (1 John 2:3-5). This may not impress the atheist, but it encourages believers to make Christ-centered, rather than purely self-centered, decisions regarding their stewardship of God’s creation (Colossians 3:23; Psalm 8:3-8).
REFERENCES
Leakey, Richard (1981), The Making of Mankind (London: Michael Joseph).
Major, Trevor (1995), “Do Humans and Apes Differ Only by Degree?,” Reason & Revelation, 15:87-88, November.
Did the Laws of Science Apply in the Beginning? by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3710
Did the Laws of Science Apply in the Beginning?
by | Jeff Miller, Ph.D. |
It is relatively easy to disprove the idea that matter can spontaneously generate. Of course, even intuition does not back spontaneous generation. It matters not how long you sit in your chair and stare at an empty desk. A pencil will not eventually materialize on the desk before you. Things—no matter how simplistic—do not pop into existence from nothing.
The idea of ordered, physical law-abiding matter (i.e., like that which we see all around us in the created order) coming into being from nothing is even more far-fetched. Beyond intuition, this matter is laid to rest when we consider the implications of the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Matter. To paraphrase, the amount of energy and matter in a system will remain constant unless there is input from some outside source. In other words, it does not matter how long you stare at the table, unless someone comes by your table and puts an already existing pencil on it, or you put the pencil on it yourself, or it falls on the table from some other place, a pencil will not appear on the table. This idea, applied to the origin of the Universe, indicates that the Universe has either always existed (an idea which violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics) or Someone put it here (see Miller, 2007 for a more in depth discussion of the Laws of Thermodynamics and their application to the Creation/Evolution controversy).
In response, some scientists boldly make the claim that, concerning the origin of matter, “one usually assumes that the current laws of physics did not apply then” (Linde, 1994). Granted—certain assumptions are often necessary in science. Granted—no one was around to make scientific observations about the origin of matter. But wait…that’s the point. How is it scientific to make such a claim when all empirical evidence that has ever been observed by scientists leads to the conclusion that the laws of physics are and always have been immutable? Scientific assumptions must carry the quality of being reasonable in order for them to be permissible in scientific discussion. The only way the claim that the laws of science did not apply in the beginning can be made and considered to be reasonable is if the person has made another equally unscientific assumption upon which that claim is based. The person would have to assume that there was no One here at the beginning that could have organized matter in keeping with the Laws that that Being set in motion. The creation model in no way contradicts the laws of physics. On the other hand, the atheistic evolutionary model contradicts the laws of physics in a myriad of ways. Yet, creationists are the ones who are somehow branded as unscientific.
In response, some scientists boldly make the claim that, concerning the origin of matter, “one usually assumes that the current laws of physics did not apply then” (Linde, 1994). Granted—certain assumptions are often necessary in science. Granted—no one was around to make scientific observations about the origin of matter. But wait…that’s the point. How is it scientific to make such a claim when all empirical evidence that has ever been observed by scientists leads to the conclusion that the laws of physics are and always have been immutable? Scientific assumptions must carry the quality of being reasonable in order for them to be permissible in scientific discussion. The only way the claim that the laws of science did not apply in the beginning can be made and considered to be reasonable is if the person has made another equally unscientific assumption upon which that claim is based. The person would have to assume that there was no One here at the beginning that could have organized matter in keeping with the Laws that that Being set in motion. The creation model in no way contradicts the laws of physics. On the other hand, the atheistic evolutionary model contradicts the laws of physics in a myriad of ways. Yet, creationists are the ones who are somehow branded as unscientific.
REFERENCES
Linde, Andrei (1994), “The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe,” Scientific American, 271[5]:48, November.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,”Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,”Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.
Islam and Early America by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1485
Islam and Early America
by | Dave Miller, Ph.D. |
America has drifted farther away from its original spiritual, religious, and moral moorings than at any point in the past. Those moorings were identified by French historian and politician Alexis de Tocqueville in his monumental 1835 literary masterpiece, Democracy in America, published after a visit to America in 1831-1832:
[T]here is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.... Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent; the consequence is, as I have before observed, that every principle of the moral world is fixed and determinate.... [T]he revolutionists of America are obliged to profess an ostensible respect for Christian morality and equity, which does not permit them to violate wantonly the laws that oppose their designs.... [W]hile the law permits the Americans to do what they please, religion prevents them from conceiving, and forbids them to commit, what is rash or unjust.... I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion—for who can search the human heart?—but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.... The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.... How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie is not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? And what can be done with a people who are their own masters if they are not submissive to the Deity?(1945, 1:303-307, emp. added).
Indeed, “how is it possible...?,” and “what can be done...?”
Contrary to the claim in recent years that the Founding Fathers of America advocated “pluralism” and equal acceptance of all religions, ideologies, and philosophies, the truth is that they feared for the future of the nation should its Christian foundation ever be compromised. Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, who was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President George Washington, reflected this concern in 1788, though he felt confident that Islam would never be allowed to infiltrate America:
But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices.... But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own (1836, 4:194, emp. added).
Similarly, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Court by President James Madison in 1811 and considered the founder of Harvard Law School and one of two men who have been considered the Fathers of American Jurisprudence, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, clarified the meaning of the First Amendment as it relates to religious toleration and Islam:
The real object of the [First—DM] [A]mendment 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 a hierarchy [of one denomination—DM] the exclusive patronage of the national government (1833, 3:728.1871, emp. added).
The other man who shares the title “Father of American Jurisprudence” in America was New York State Supreme Court Chief Justice James Kent, who, in penning the opinion of the court in The People v. Ruggles in 1811, reiterated the national attitude toward Islam that existed from the inception of the country. In a case that resulted in the punishment of an individual who publicly maligned and denounced the Christian religion, Kent acknowledged the right of “free and decent discussions on any religious subject,” but nevertheless insisted:
Nor are we bound, by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those imposters(8 Johns 290).
While America generally has welcomed all nationalities of people to her shores regardless of their personal beliefs, alternative ideologies and religions never were intended to be given credence and allowed to transform her into either a religionless or non-Christian society. Nor was it intended that American civilization be adjusted to accommodate religious principles that contradict the original foundations of the nation. America welcomes people to live in freedom within her borders—as long as they do so peaceably. But to adjust social parameters in public life to accommodate divergent religions will weaken, not strengthen, the ability of America to sustain herself. Noah Webster articulated this indisputable fact in a letter to James Madison on October 29, 1829:
[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government.... and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence (as quoted in Snyder, 1990, p. 253, emp. added).
One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, John Carroll, echoed these same sentiments in a letter to James McHenry on November 4, 1800:
[W]ithout morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments (as quoted in Steiner, 1907, p. 475, emp. added).
The Founders understood that the Christian religion was the foundation upon which the superstructure of American civil institutions was built. To undermine that foundation is to encourage the collapse of American civilization as it was originally intended. The ultimate key and solution to America’s future is self-evident and simple—but increasingly unacceptable to more and more Americans:
Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people He has chosen as His own inheritance. The Lord looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth.... No king is saved by the multitude of an army; a mighty man is not delivered by great strength. A horse is a vain hope for safety; neither shall it deliver any by its great strength. Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him, on those who hope in His mercy (Psalm 33:12-18, emp. added).
REFERENCES
Iredell, James (1836), The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, ed. Jonathan Elliot (Washington, D.C.: Jonathan Elliot).
The People v. Ruggles (1811), 8 Johns 290 (Sup. Ct. NY.), N.Y. Lexis 124.
Snyder, K. Alan (1990), Defining Noah Webster: Mind and Morals in the Early Republic (New York: University Press of America).
Steiner, Bernard (1907), The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland, OH: Burrows Brothers).
Story, Joseph (1833), Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, & Co.).
Tocqueville, Alexis de (1945 reprint), Democracy in America (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).
From Gary... Liar, liar- country on fire!!!
I must confess that I am angry. Angry over the corruptness of our government. We have elected people to the highest offices- The presidency and both houses of congress who have betrayed us. They in turn have appointed a supreme court that now legislates from the bench political agenda. All of them have sought their own interests above that of the people and lied to us over decades. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. It is impossible for me not to think of these things and NOT think of Jesus' words...
Matthew, Chapter 7 (WEB)
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. 16 By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit. 18 A good tree can’t produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that doesn’t grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. 21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will tell me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?’ 23 Then I will tell them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.’
Just as those who listen to false prophets will suffer a horrible end, so will this nation perish if it does not change radically- and very soon!!! We are falling apart at this very moment because of the godlessness of our leaders. I see the solution to our fate as being a dramatic change in thinking. America: turn to God, now- before it is too late!!! Elect honest men and women to our nation's government. Make every candidate running for office take an oath to support the constitution of The United States of America and be willing to step down if their constituents petition to remove them by initiative and referendum. End the corruption that creeps into our government by career politicians who take bribes and get rich at the expense of the very people they represent. Pass laws that limit the number of terms that members of the house and senate can hold political office. Change the Supreme Court from an appointed office to an elected one.
May this country never elect liars to any political office, ever again!!! And if we discover their lies- remove them and put them in prison (where they belong)!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)