An Examination of Biblical Precepts Involved in Issues at Hand
Education in Constitutional Heresies
Doing Our Duty, Even On a Snowy Day
The Life of an American Taliban' in a U.S. Jail
Personal (& letters)
Rick Warren - Christian
Fundamentalists are the enemy
Why Marriage Is Good Medicine for Men
Why American English is the Most Difficult Language to Learn
Lessons From Wealthy and Wise Parents
A beautiful friendship. The truth about Israel lobby's influence
The demise of America
God of the Future
A young man asked, "Why do you keep fighting the Civil War. It is over, and the North won. Leave it be."
His question was good. Why do we try to keep the memory of what happened alive? First, the "memory" has been rewritten by the victors, and the truth has been lost somewhere in the fog. Second, we must learn from the truth of the situation. The truth being that the North used its compulsory education system to train up obedient servantsslavesto the State, so the State could use them as cannon fodder (collateral damage) as it forced its will upon its citizens. The system worked then, and it is working now, as it continues to trains up obedient slaves in its education system. We can better understand the present and what the future holds when we understand the past.
Note: I was sent a Medicare letter saying that because I will be 65 in August, I will become a Medicare enrollee unless I returned a card with my signature, and one of a witness, saying I did not want it. I returned the card saying I did not want it. However, a few weeks latter, I received the Medicare card anyway. The all-caring, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise state has bought off any desire for true freedom with its offer of womb to tomb security, and the people love it.
Our people have been indoctrinated in Biblical as well as Constitutional heresies, and must be reeducated in truth. The more I read history and study, the more I come to understand that the reeducation of Christians in historical and Biblical truth is the key to any hope of rescuing this nation from its swift path to self-destruction. If it is too late to stop the destruction, then Christians must train up a new generation that can build out of the chaotic destruction.
We must start by understanding why we are where we are before we can bring about a change.
Why did Lincoln invade a foreign nation, the Confederate States of America, when that nation was no threat to his nation? Was his motive according to what we have been taught by the victor? Was it a war of Southern rebellion against the Union, trying to overthrow the Union? Or was it a War for Independence as was fought in the 1700s? Was that War for Independence an effort to overthrow the English government, or was it a war to be free from the oppressive English government?
We like to know the truth of the first War for Independence, so we read those who lived through that period of time. In order to know the truth of the second War for Independence, we must read the words of those who lived through that period of time. Our emphasis at this time is the Second War for independence.
We need to read men who lived through those dreadful years, men such as Robert Lewis Dabney.
R.L. Dabney was a son of Charles, who was from French Huguenot descent. Charles was a Presbyterian elder, a farmer and a local magistrate. Robert Lewis was born the sixth of 8 children in 1820. He was Chief-of-Staff for Sonewall Jackson during the Valley Campaigns. (We presently live in the Valley, close to where Lincoln made his first invasion of Virginia. Jackson fought the Federal troops all up and down this Valley, trying to stop Lincoln's slaughter of the inocent.) Dabney was Jackson's official biographer, and authored A Defense of Virginia and the South during Lincoln's war. He was a Presbyterian of the Old School, with few peers in the pulpit of his day. He was a Calvinist who knew why he was a Calvinist. He was an excellent farmer, and a capital mechanic skilled in the use of tools. He was a surveyor, learning the art as a teenager, and an architect, who without any formal instruction in that art, he drew up plans for churches and houses. He possessed carpentry and masonry skills building 2 homes himself, even making his own furniture. He was an inventor who actually had some patents. He taught history, systematic and polemic theology, and sacred rhetoric at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia for 30 years, and was considered one of the greatest seminary professors of all time. He was also an extraordinary philosopher, considered the premier philosopher of this continent, even above Jonathan Edwards. R.L. Dabney had an incredible understanding of politics. He was a conservative (in the old sense of the word). He was a poet - and you can find several examples of his verse in his biography by T. C. Johnson. He became an able teacher and writer in this department. He condemned the popular policies of protectionism in his day being a "free-trader." He condemned paper money and wrote papers on coinage. Robert Dabney was a patriot. "Love of country burned strongly in the bosom of Robert L. Dabney." "He loved...his county, his State, the country of the Constitution of the United States. He mourned the trampling of that Constitution into the mire under the influence of commercialism and greed by the dominant section."
"He hated abolitionism, but he was for the Union as long as to be so was consistent with honor, as long as he could be Pro-Union, and not be a traitor to his native sovereign State [Virginia]; he recognized State sovereignty as imbedded in the Federal Constitution."
Pre-eminently he was a mighty man of God and a mighty preacher of the Gospel.
Though a Union man, in the true sense of the word constitution, "When Lincoln proceeded to usurp power to coerce sovereign States, he at once ceased to be a Union man. Resistance to usurpation became then a sacred duty. The South had a good and righteous cause."
After a short, serious illness he died on January 3, 1898.1
Though Dr. Dabney only had a slight acquaintance with Jackson, and was trying to regain his health after contracting tedious fever acquired from his work among the soldiers, he was invited to be Jackson's A.A. General, by Mr. Jackson. April 8th, 1862. He remained with Jackson until Jackson's death.
Now, what had he to say?
For years before the war the sectional and aggressive party had control of the State education in New England and the Northwest. They used their opportunity diligently; and the result was that when the chance to strike came, they had a whole generation trained to their purpose in hatred of the South and in constitutional heresies. Such was the testimony of Daniel Webster. Two gentlemen from Virginiaold collegemates of minewere visiting Washington during Mr. Filmore's administration. Webster's return towards an impartial course had then gained him some respect in the South, and my two friends paid their respects to him. While conversing with them he fixed his dark eyes on them, and with great earnestness asked: "Can't you Southern gentlemen consent, upon some sort of inducement or plan, to surrender slavery?" They replied firmly: "Not to the interference or dictation of the Federal Government. And this not on account of mercenary or selfish motives, but because to allow outside interference in this vital matter would forfeit the liberties and other rights of the South." "Are you fixed in that?" asked Webster. "Yes, unalterably." "Well," he said, with an awful solemnity. "I cannot say you are wrong, but if you are fixed in that, go home and get ready your weapons." They asked him what on earth he meant. He replied, that the parsons and common-school teachers and school-marms had diligently educated a whole Northern generation into a passionate hatred of slavery, who would, as certainly as destiny, attack Southern institutions. So that if Southern men were determined not to surrender their institutions they had better prepare for war. Thus, according to Mr. Webster, the crimes, woes, and horrors of the last fifteen years are all partly due to this school system. The only condition in which free government can exist is amidst the wholesome competition of two great constitutional parties, who watch and restrain each other. The result of this system of State schools is that the successful party extinguishes its rival, and thus secures for itself an unchecked career of usurpation. (Emp. added.)2
1) The problem was clearly not slavery. The problem was that the Federal Government was gaining too much power, and was intent on making obedient servants of the several States, rather than the Federal Government being the obedient servant of the several States.
2) The South knew that allowing the Federal Government to dictate to them, even in righteous matters, would mean the end of a way of life and of State's Rights, i.e., the Tenth Amendment.
3) The "two great constitutional parties" of our day are both on the same page, as both are only interested in usurping more power and money from US citizens.
4) The Northern radical abolitionist agitators controlled the North's educational institutions. There they trained a generation in constitutional heresies and hatred for the South. So when the abolitionists moved Lincoln to invade the South, they had public support and a ready made army, willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of people to obtain their goal. The North's victory has enabled them to continue their training in constitutional heresies, hatred for the Christian way of life nation wide, uniting all political parties into one and stamping out any opposition to their wicked schemes. (NEA is a good example.) Sadly, many Christian home educators pursue the Federal Government's goal by using material that propagates constitutional heresies, hatred for Christianity and undermining God's word.
That this war was made, not to preserve a constitutional Union, but solely to promote the aims of a faction, is confirmed by these further facts. Its purpose was clearly betrayed by the final reply of Mr. Lincoln to Colonel Baldwin's noble appeal for conciliation: "What then, will become of my tariff?" He might as well have said out aloud, that he was making this war, not to preserve a Union, but to enforce his projected high tariff. Next, every thoughtful man, North and South, friend or foe of the Union, knew perfectly well that the Montgomery Confederacy of seven States must be short lived if it remained alone without the border States....3
Thus, both Congress and Lincoln wanted the tariffs, and were willing to go to war over the money. They were far more interested in the money than in justice, an obvious problem since the fall in the Garden, and a prevalent problem among our politicians today.
If I may borrow a new term of finance, it would have been the easiest thing in the world to "freeze out" this weak association. By giving them a useless independence, making them feel the inconveniences of separation and holding peaceably and steadily before them the benefit and protection of the old, just constitutional Union. So Mr Seward knew; and on this belief his policy was founded. So the Virginian statesman and ardent lover of the Union, Alexander H. Stewart, assured Mr. Lincoln. So Colonel Baldwin so ex-Governor Morehead, of Kentucky. My point is then, that the seven seceded States could have been brought back with certainty by pacific means. For the Union, no war was needed. It was made solely in the interest of the Jacobin party. [Radical or extreme leftist. A radical republican during the French Revolution.]
Secessionists and Union men alike knew that the Montgomery Confederacy could not stand, without the accession of the great border States. But the latter were still firm friends of the Union. They judged, like the secessionists, that the abolition and free-soil movement was sectional, mischievous, insulting, and perilous; but they had calmly resolved not to make it a casus belli, wicked as it was. They had distinctly refused to go out of the Union on that issue. They pledged themselves to support Mr. Lincoln loyally and legally, though not the President of their choice, and to conciliate the seceded States provided the crime of coercion was foreborne. But they assured Mr. Lincoln that this usurpation and crime would infallibly drive them, though reluctant, into the secession camp. This made it perfectly plain that peace meant a restored Union, while war meant disunion. But the Jacobins needed a war for their own factious ends. There was nothing they disliked so much as a Union peaceably restored. Therefore they preferred the tactics which would insure war, and that on the most gigantic scale, rather than peace and union. Their problem was how to make sure of the spilling of blood. Thus while those patriotic and union-loving statesmen, Messrs. Stewart and Baldwin, were pleading with Mr. Lincoln not to coerce, because coercion would precipitate certain disunion and a dreadful war, they were producing upon the cunning and malignant minds of the Jacobin leaders a conclusion exactly opposite to the one they desired. Those minds said to themselves: "Just so; therefore we will coerce, because it is war which we crave, and not a righteous Union."4
The border States did not want to leave the union, and told Lincoln that they would be loyal, if he would not coerce them to stay. They wanted to remain as free States, not as States in bondage to a Federal Government. But the radicals needed the war. To them a peaceful solution was not compatible with their desire to spill as much blood as possible.
The history of the peace-congress confirms this explanation. It will stand in all history to the everlasting glory of Virginia, that she proposed this assemblage, as a special agency for harmonizing differences and restoring a true Union. She sent to it her wisest patriots, irrespective of party, headed by the great ex-President, John Tyler, illustrious for his experience, purity, courtesy and fairness. But the Jacobin leaden had resolved that there should be no peace; and this without waiting to see what terms of conciliation might be found. It is a historical fact, that definite instructions went forth from their head in advance, that the efforts of the Peace Congress must be made abortive. The motive was not concealed: that the partisan interests of the Jacobins were adverse to such a peace. Other leaders as Senators Chandler, of Michigan, and Wade, of Ohio, etc., declared with brutal frankness, that the case required blood-letting, instead of peace. Therefore, this last effort of patriotism and love for the Union was an entire failure.5
The War could have been prevented, but the radicals' minds were made up. There had to be a war, and they were going to see that it took place regardless of what was offered by the States. The States saw the Constitution, which guaranteed State's Rights, being destroyed, so they seceded. If Lincoln had agreed that he would uphold the Constitutional right to secede, the States would have returned, and there would have been no war.
Clearly, the issue was not slavery, for the North had more than its share of slaves, and was the leader in the slave trade. The Radicles had prepared the way for the invasion of the South by instructing a generation in constitutional heresies, for the South was acting in total accord with the Constitution. (There are many instances of Northern states desiring to depart the Union before the South departed, and it was considered well within their rights to do so.)
21. It is quite certain that the Constitution would never have received the ratification of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and perhaps other of the eleven ratifying States, but for the well-grounded assurance that certain amendments securing more carefully the rights of the States would be adopted, as soon as the requisite formalities could be complied with. Chief among these amendments was the safeguard to State sovereignty, afterwards embodied in the tenth amendment. It reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 6
"To the victors go the spoils," and the spoils of Lincoln's war was the compulsory free-education system forced upon every parent. Many generations since Lincoln have now been effectively trained in constitutional heresies, permitting the Federal Government to do as it pleases. It now treats the States' citizens as its own servants at the point of a bayonet, forcing them to pay for their own destruction, e.g., the state schools.
"Where the whole tendency of education is to create obedience," Brownson said, "all teachers must be pliant tools of government. Such a system of education is not inconsistent with the theory of Prussian society but the thing is wholly inadmissible here." He further argued that "according to our theory the people are wiser than the government. Here the people do not look to the government for light, for instruction, but the government looks to the people. The people give law to the government." He concluded that "to entrust government with the power of determining education which our children shall receive is entrusting our servant with the power of the master. The fundamental difference between the United States and Prussia has been overlooked by the board of education and its supporters."7
Thanks to the wicked public education system, the public has been well indoctrinated into yielding all rights to the State, the Federal Government. The result is that rather than the Federal Government being servant to the people (the States), the people are convinced they are servants of the Federal Government the Federal Government gives law to the people, rather than the people giving law to the Federal Government. This is why no matter who is on the Supreme Court, the Court will continue to act in gross violation of the constitution, for they have been so trained. (Proverbs 22:6.)
Not long ago, I heard a NPR interview with Sen. Byrd (D. WV), who is known as "The King of Pork." He said he was not concerned about being reelected, because he had proven himself capable of "bringing home the bacon." In other words, his people knew he would get the most federal money for them, so they kept him in office. (He is a very effective "Robin Hood", robbing from the "haves" to gives to the "have nots."
Both the people and the leaders have found that disasters equal votes. Though the federal government complains about disasters, it knows that disasters increase the people's dependence upon the state. Disaster declarationmaking federal money readily available to big business to rebuild and to the people at low interesthave dramatically increased over the years, though disasters have not. Eisenhower issued 107 during his eight years in office, or 13 a year. Kennedy/Johnson, 18 a year. Nixon, 37, which held steady until Clinton, who issued 88, and Bush, 139 per year, thus far. Disaster declarations mean votes, and retention of power. That is what politics is all about.
Thus, until there is a change in the attitude of the people for "free" money, there will be no change in leadership.
Without a return to a reasonable Biblical world-view among the general population, things will continue to deteriorate. Can we trust our God to see us through the judgment that not only is here, but will continue to increase?
No matter how vocal one may be about the Constitution being violated by all manner of activities, including the 14th and 16th amendments, the people have been trained by the State that Unconstitutional, and Unbiblical, laws are legitimate laws. Home educators!! Many use curriculum that supports Constitutional heresies, hatred for the South, and undermining God's word. Thus, the chains and blindness remain, even growing stronger; they will remain so until there is honest education.
By allowing the State to establish law rather than God through his word, we have allowed the State to be god. Cf., Isaiah 33:22, James 4:12. We have replaced the Creator with the creature. Romans 1:25. If we follow the clear implications of allowing the State to be god, the lawgiver, we must conclude that sending our children to State schools is sacrificing them to devils. Psalms 106:20, 27.
Daniel Webster said in the Girard Will case, commenting on the exclusion of clergymen from the proposed orphan college: "In what age , by what sect, where, when, by whom, has religious truth been excluded from the education of the youth? Nowhere; never. Everywhere, and at all times, it has been and is regarded as essential. It is the essence, the vitality of useful instruction." John Locke said that all accomplishments of education without a moral foundation "will be to no purpose but to make the worse or more dangerous man." Thus, knowledge is only good if it leads to right actions.8
Dabney points out that as there cannot be in any soul a non-Christian state which is not anit-Christian, it follows that any training which attempts to be non-Christian is therefore anti-Christian.9 Which means that non-Christian education, such as found in the government education system, is a violation of the total of the Commandments. It is a gross sin, no matter how much Christians try to justify their wickedness.
However, God does give his grace to a few to see the need to extract themselves from the heresies in which they have been so well trained.
The duty of education rests with the parents. "Such is the Protestant doctrinethe Bible doctrine. Neither State nor Church are to usurp it; but both are to enlighten , encourage and assist the parent in his inalienable task.10 Note: Neither the church nor the State has the Biblical mandate to train the children. However, at least the church can give a moral foundation to education, which the State cannot give.
Nor can the State educate for morality. The North passed off the lie that education would lead to knowledge and morality, yet as education increased, so did stupidity and the North's prison population; that education was politically correct State anti-Christian education without God, as evidenced today by Bill Gothard's training in "Universal Life Principles," rather than Biblical doctrine.11 As a result of Lincoln's war (brought about by his invasion of the sovereign foreign nation of Virginia), the North's education system was forced, at the points of bayonets, upon the South, giving the South the huge increase in stupidity and prison population.
Thus, the North gained the spoils of war: control of the educational system. It forced the South to indoctrinate its children with the North's constitutional heresies, its hatred for the South, its hatred for Christianity, its lying creed of Radicalism which was a gospel of hate, murder and the utter falsification of history, of fact and of constitutional law. It is obvious that the Federal Government is only against slavery that does not serve its purpose.
The "Rule of Law" only applies when it can be used to silence those who oppose evil in high places. It does not apply to those in high places as they justify their disregard of law. We saw this at the very grass roots, as we were voting delegates to the Republican Caucus for the 10th district of Virginia, 2006. There we saw the total disregard for the law by those pushing for Frank Wolf to continue to be our Congressman. At the start of the Caucus, it was announced that Robert's Rules of Order would be used. However, when the Rules went against the desires of the chair, they were totally disregarded, e.g., if the voice vote was clearly against something the chair proposed, the chair ruled against the majority vote the yeas have it, though the nays clearly had it. Just watch those who cry for "Rule of Law" when they violate the law. They are hypocrites of the worse order, yet Christians continue to support the hypocrites.
The public has been indoctrinated by the state education system to believe and live by constitutional heresies, and its gospel of hate, murder and utter falsification of history. The state is now working hard to indoctrinate the public in anti-Christian family beliefs, as fornication, adultery, and sodomy. Christians welcome that indoctrination of their children by sending them to state schools.
The sodomites are hard at work training up a generation of government educated young people, supported and financed by Christians, who will accept sodomy:
POLITICS: Gay-rights groups are quietly but aggressively advancing their agenda. By Lynn Vincent.
WHILE THE NEWS MEDIA focused on immigration last week, California Democrats focused on completing the transmutation of public-school social science curricula into a punctuated series of pro-homosexuality tracts. On May 3, the state Senate education committee held hearings on SB 1437, a bill that would require K-12 students to study the contributions of "people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society."
SB 1437 would also prohibit text-books, materials, or activities that "reflect adversely" on gays and lesbians and nix the inclusion of "any sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda contrary to law."
In plain language: Only tolerant portrayals of homosexuals allowed; religious dissent will not be tolerated.
While the national conversation has this year focused on soaring gas prices, border security, and digging for presidential scandal, the gay agenda is marching on. Homosexual activists "now are working under the radar," said Robert Knight, director of the Washington, D.C.-based Culture and Family Institute (CFI), an affiliate of Concerned Women for America. ...
Statehouse observers expect SB 1437 to pass, muscled through by a 25-14 Democratic majority. One likely result of the law would be the revision of all instructional materials relating to marriage and family: For example, those defining marriage as between a husband and wife would be purgedor amended to include portrayals of same-sex marriage.
At the May 3 hearings, SB 1437 supporters said the bill was necessary so that gay students would feel safe and well-represented. Opposition witnesses said the changes would amount to compulsory indoctrination on a controversial issue properly left to parents.
Education committee members didn't buy that argument and passed SB 1437 on an 8-3 party-line vote. The bill now heads to the Senate floor.12
The state anti-Christ education system is paying off:
GOVERNMENT: A federal constitutional amendment may be the only way to head off a church-state clash over same-sex marriage | by Lynn Vincent
The article led with a picture of "clergy" speaking in DC for sodomite rights in marriage.
There is a violent war being waged for the hearts and souls of the upcoming generation, and Christians refuse to face the fact that the primary battle ground is in the education system, as well as in the entertainment system. Our children are being trained in the ways of the world, and to serve other gods. Should we be surprised when they serve those other gods when they get older?
The battle for a "Marriage Amendment" has been lost to the sodomite agenda. With Christian support of the government, antichrist education system, the upcoming generation has been taught that sodomy is an accepted life-style. The votes will not be there to support Biblical marriage. Moreover, talks of a "Marriage Amendment" is little more than smoke to make Bush's conservative base think he really is a conservative, while he continues America's destruction.
Godly Home Education is the only real chance of rescuing a generation out of the bondage, yes, slavery, to the Federal Government's education system's training in constitutional heresies. True history and Biblical morality must be taught to our children, and the only ones who have been commissioned by God to do it are the parents. The future of Western Civilization lies in the hands of those who hunger for true Biblical freedom and the truth, and are willing to pay the price to see that their children are trained properly.
Note, however, that home education is not a panacea. The books of rewritten history (text books), even from Christian publishers, must be thrown out, and replaced with books that tell the truth. I certainly am not a textbook authority, but I know of no textbook from any major publisher that does not promote the Northern lies, constitutional heresies and slavery to a strong centralized government.
To understand the American "system" or "the American way of life as we know it," you must understand a bit of history. By the time the War Between the States ended, there had been a coup d'etat in the United States. The North didn't win the war, and the South didn't win the war. Big business won the war, and every since, big business has been reorganising the country and the people to suit its own purposes and profits. That is, the American system: Big Business runs the government. And its beating heart is the fraudulent monetary system that feeds and supports it.13
... Meantime, the radical [Northern] Governors came down, "having great wrath," to terrorize the administration. They spoke in this strain: "Seward cries perpetually that we must not do this, and that, for fear war should result. Seward is shortsighted. War is precisely the thing we should desire. Our party interests have everything to lose by a peaceable settlement of this trouble, and everything to gain by collision. For a generation we have been `the outs'; now at last we are the ins.' While in opposition, it was very well to prate of Constitution, and of rights; but now we are the government, and mean to continue so; and our interest is to have a strong and centralized government. It is high time now that the government were revolutionized and consolidated, and these irksome States' rights' wiped out. We need a strong government to dispense much wealth and power to its adherents; we want permanently high tariffs, to make the South tributary to the North; and now these Southern fellows are giving us precisely the opportunity we want to do all this, and shall Seward sing his silly song of the necessity of avoiding war? War is the very thing we should hail! The Southern men are rash, and now profoundly irritated. Our plan should be, by some artifice, to provoke them to seem to strike the first blow. Then we shall have a pretext with which to unite the now divided North, and make them fly to arms. The Southerners are a braggart, but a cowardly and effeminate set of bullies; we shall easily whip them in three months. But this short war will be, if we are wise, our sufficient occasion. We will use it to destroy slavery, and thus permanently cripple the South. And that is the stronghold of all these ideas of limited government' and rights of the people.' Crush the South, by abolishing slavery, and we shall have all we wanta consolidated government, an indefinite party ascendancy, and ability to lay on such tariffs and taxes as we please, and aggrandize ourselves and our section!"14
What About Slavery?
When we think of the War between the States, we have been taught to think immediately of slavery, and how badly they were mistreated in the South. Of course, there is no thought of the conditions from which the negroes were brought, the Northern slave traders who made their living by bringing in the slaves, of the Arabs who bought the negroes nor of the tribal warfare that resulted in the captives from those warfares being sold for the slave market.
Parenthesis: The first and only movie I remember my dad taking us to was Disney's Song of the South. After Christina's mother died, someone gave us 2, 4 day passes to Disney World in Florida. One of the rides there was Brer Rabbit, and Song of the South. After the ride, there was gift shop, of course, and I asked for the movie, Song of the South. The young lady said that Disney no longer sold that movie in the US, but to go on ebay and I would find it. It is an excellent movie, but totally politically incorrect. Rather than showing slaves in the South being mistreated, as is continually held before us, it shows the slaves being treated with kindness. There are many books from the 1800s that tell the truth of how slaves were treated. Certainly, there were owners who mistreated their property, but they were the exception, not the rule as we have been taught.
5. There were negro slaves in all the colonies; but a great many more of them were needed on the large plantations of the South than on the small farms of New England.
6. According to some authorities in 1620, according to others in 1619, some Dutch traders had brought twenty negroes to Jamestown, Va., and sold them to the settlers. This was the beginning of negro slavery in the English settlements in North America. The merchants and seamen of New England engaged actively in the African slave trade, bringing great numbers of negroes from Africa and selling them to the Southern planters. They had gone into the business as early as 1636 when the "Desire," the first American slave ship, was built at Marblehead, Massachusetts.
7. The people of Virginia became alarmed at the great number of ignorant barbarians that were thus being brought into the colony; and the legislature passed laws to stop the traffic. But the king of England compelled them to repeal these laws. The founders of Georgia prohibited slavery and rum in that colony; but after several years these restrictions were removed.15
NOT WITHSTANDING sectional jealousies and occasional jars between States and the Federal Government the United States grew in power, population and wealth in a manner unequaled by any other country of ancient or modern times. The Union was the pride of every American, and the people of our country were the freest and most prosperous on earth. But over all the bright scene of prosperity hovered a dark cloud which was destined to finally burst in fury on the land. This was the slavery quarrel.
2. My readers have already seen how slavery was introduced into our country during the colonial period; how Dutch, English and New England sailors went to the coast of Africa to get negro slaves, and then brought them to America and sold them to the colonists. In many parts of the country there was strong opposition to this bringing of slaves from Africa. Virginia opposed it earnestly. In Georgia some opposed it, while others favored it.
3. Slavery During the Confederation.After the establishment of independence the more Northern States, where there had never been any profit in slavery, began to free their slaves. In the Southern States, where the negroes were very numerous, slavery was retained, partly because the people found their slave property valuable and partly because they feared the result if so many people of the African race should be set free in their midst. But many Southern people at that time looked upon slavery as an institution, of which they would like to be rid if they only knew how. Virginia in the ceding of her northwest territory stipulated that slavery should be kept out of it.
4. The Constitution and Slavery. The Constitution recognized property in slaves, and provided for the return of runaway slaves to their masters. (Article IV., section 2.) As a compromise between the New England merchants and the planters of South Carolina and Georgia, in return for certain commercial favors allowed the former, the African slave trade was not to be interfered with by the government of the United States until 1808.
5. Abolition of the African Slave Trade.But long before the end of the time allowed for the continuance of this trade most of the States had passed laws against it. Virginia was the first of all the States to forbid it. Georgia followed, and put a clause into her State constitution forbidding the bringing of slaves into Georgia from Africa or any other foreign country. This was in 1798ten years before the expiration of the time allowed by the Constitution of the United States for the continuance of the African slave trade. When the year 1808 came Congress abolished this trade. New England seamen enraged in it to the very last.
6. First Attempt at Slavery Agitation. The first attempt to bring the question of slavery into national politics was in February, 1790, when Benjamin Franklin, of Pennsylvania, headed a petition to Congress urging the Federal authorities to adopt measures looking to the final abolition of African slavery throughout the Union. But Congress passed a resolution declaring that it had no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, and that settled the question for the time. ...16
Though the South was committed to removing slavery, the radical abolitionists were not satisfied. William Lloyd Garrison of Massachusetts began his work of agitation around 1829. He and his followers "claimed the Federal Constitution to be A covenant with death and an agreement with hell,'" for it permitted State independence over the slavery issue. They circulated tracts filled with abuses of slaveholders throughout the country. Some of these tracts fell into the hands of negroes in Southampton, VA, and the negroes started an insurrection, in which men, women and children were murdered in their beds. Up to 1835, free negroes with property were allowed to vote in North Carolina, but after the radicals' efforts, that right was removed.18 Thus, it was the radical abolitionists that caused states to change their "liberal" stand toward freeing the slaves and toward the freed slaves.
Even many in the North who were opposed to slavery did not sympathize with the extreme men of Garrison's sort. In fact, conservative men of the North "denounced the Abolitionists and broke up their meetings."19 In 1837, many efforts were made by Northern men to obtain the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. (Did Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation free the D.C. slaves?) John Calhoun introduced resolutions "that the Federal Government had no right to interfere with slavery in either the States or the Territories of the Union. The Senate by a large majority adopted these resolutions." However, the agitation did not stop there, and another attempt to renew the slavery agitation was made in the house in 1838. Again, the overwhelming vote was to leave the matter up to the states.20
But the Abolitionists agitators cared nothing for the constitution, and the great majority of "Americans considered them men disloyal to the Constitution, and as foes of the Federal Union."21
The Abolitionists totally disregarded the restraints of the Constitution, and would not tolerate the idea of gradual emancipation, which was making considerable progress in the Southern border States. The Abolitionist agitators' attack against slaveholders and their determination for their cause regardless of the consequences, "alarmed the Southern people and put a complete stop to the idea of gradual emancipation..." "Without the agitators, slavery would have been gradually abolished, free from the bitterness and free from the great decimation of the most dreadful war of the nineteenth century."22 But the agitators did not want a peaceful settlement they wanted war.
As late as 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled "that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in any of the Territories of the Union. But the anti-slavery agitators denounced the decision and utterly disregarded it." The Democrats wanted the slavery question left up to the states, but the Republicans were rabid, radical Abolitionists, and ignored the Constitution. The Democrats, however, could not agree on how to leave the slavery issue up to the States, so it split into two parts. Though the Republican party stood for big government and total control of the individual states by the central government, the split in the Democrats allowed the Republicans, in 1860, to elect their candidates, Lincoln and his party, though they carried no Southern State.23
The Republican party had made slavery the chief issue since its start. The unlawful and unconstitutional agitation of the Republican Abolitionists over the slavery question had so aroused the North against the South as to permit it to elect a President by the vote of the Northern States alone. The election of Lincoln and his party, now controlling the new Congress (which refused any compromise on the slave issue), alarmed the Southern States, so they started seceding, and united together as a new government with a new constitution (which, by the way, "recognized property in slaves. It at the same time forbade the African Slave Trade, or the bringing of negroes into the Confederacy..." The North did not forbid the African Slave trade). Thus, the "Civil War" was a war for Southern Independence, as much as the American War against Britain was for Independence, only America won independence from Britain while the Confederate States lost their war for Independence from the Northern Agitators.
11. In 1860 and 1861 there were many in the North who did not believe in the right of the government to coerce a State. Even the New York Tribune, a leading organ of the Abolitionists, declared that "if the cotton States wished to withdraw from the Union, they should be allowed to do so;" that "any attempt to compel them to remain by force would be contrary to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and to the fundamental ideas upon which human liberty is based;" and that "if the Declaration of Independence justified the secession from the British Empire of three millions of subjects in 1776, it was not seen why it would not justify the secession of five millions of Southerners from the Union in 1861." Again, the same journal declared that it would "let the Union slide" rather than to "compromise with the South and abandon the Chicago platform." Many prominent Northern men in public speeches expressed themselves as opposed to coercion. Is it any wonder, then, that many in the South hoped for peaceable secession? [As permitted by the U.S. Constitution.]24
But the radicals, the Jacobins, needed a war for their own purposes; there was nothing they disliked so much as a Union peaceably restored.25 So they would not permit the South to live in peace, and pressed Lincoln to invade a now independent, foreign nation, though that nation posed no military nor political threat to the North. Thus, the "Civil War" was actually a War for Independence, which the South lost. The North was acting like England, as England sought to prevent the 13 states from seceding from the British Empire.
When the 7 States withdrew from Congress, the Jacobins were left with a full working majority in congress. The Jacobin Congress rejected every offer of compromise with, "No compromise at all, fair or unfair, but absolute submission, or war and disunion."26 Proof of their evil intentions is clearly seen in what was done to the South in the infamous reconstruction.
There is so much more that could be said, such as how the prison population and idiocy increased with the increase of the State public education system. (Which we may discuss at a later time.)
Let me urge you to obtain Dabney's work, Discussions, vol. IV, by R.L. Dabney. It can be ordered from us or from Sprinkle Publications, <email@example.com>.
1 Taken from A Biography of R.L. Dabney, by John Thomas Cripps. A short biography posted at <http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/greatmen/dabney/dab-bio.htm> is well worth reading.
2 Discussions Secular, by R.L. Dabney.  Sprinkle Publications, Vol. IV, Secular, p. 213.
3 Ibid., 96.
5 Ibid., "The True Purpose of the Civil War," pp. 104, 105.
6 Story of the Confederate States, p. 41. Joseph T. Derry. Or, "History of the War for Southern Independence..." R.F. Johnson Publishing Co. Richmond, VA. 1895. Sprinkle reprint, 1996.
7 John Taylor Gatto [a former NY State and City teacher of the year] The Underground History of American Education, Oxford Village Press. P. 135.
8 Discussions, p. 219, 220.
9 Ibid., p. 221.
10 Ibid., p. 223.
11 Ibid., p. 202. See my book on Gothard.
12 WORLD. 5/13/06.
13 Money: Substance or Symbol. Franklin Sanders, The Moneychanger. June 2006. PO Box 178, Westpoint TN 38486. 888.218.9226. 12 issues, 14 silver dollars. Or F$149. Mr. Sanders has a God-given gift of analyzing financial matters.
14 Discussions, 98, 99.
15 Story of the Confederate States, by J.T. Derry. 1895. Sprinkle reprint, 1996. P. 21.
16 Ibid, pp. 66-68.
18 Ibid, p. 71.
20 Ibid, pp. 67, 68.
22 Ibid., 74.
23 Ibid., p. 89-93.
24 Ibid., p. 102
25 Discussions, pp. 104, 105.
26 Ibid., p. 105.
27 Political Catastrophe, World, 7/22/06. P. 40.
The Lion in Winter
By Thomas Williamson 3131 S. Archer Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60608
I would like to briefly take a look at some episodes in the lives of the loyal followers and soldiers in the army of King David, as described in I Chronicles chapter 11. Let's start with a somewhat puzzling event that took place at the city of Bethlehem, I Chronicles 11:17-19:
Now David longed, and said. Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, that is at the gate! And the three brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: but David would not drink of it, but poured it out to the Lord, And said, My God forbid it me, that I should do this thing: shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy? for with the jeopardy of their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mightiest."
Now what was that all about? Here the boss asks you to get something for him that he really could use, you go out and bust your hump and literally risk your life to fulfill the boss's request, and then he dumps out the stuff you brought to him, and it all goes to waste, and your sacrifice seemingly goes to waste. At first glance this episode doesn't make a lot of sense, but let's take a look at what Matthew Henry's commentary has to say about it.
Matthew Henry makes a number of points about this passage, the last of which is: "Tenderness of his servants. It put him into the greatest confusion imaginable to think that 3 brave men should hazard their lives to fetch water for him. In his account it turns the water into blood. It is the honour of great men not to be prodigal of the blood of those they employ, but, in all the commands they give them, to put their own souls in their souls' stead." It seems to me that what Matthew Henry is saying is that David did not want to do anything that would unnecessarily put his troops in danger, he did not want to abuse them or take advantage of them in any way. David was humble enough, even though he was the king, to realize that he was not worthy that any man should risk his life just to get him a drink of water.
David hadn't really ordered anybody to risk his life by fighting his way to the well to get him some water. He had merely mentioned in passing that it would be kind of nice if somehow, some way, someone could get him some water, and his loyal men took his wish as a command and they jumped up and fought their way through the Philistine lines to get him the water, and then they had to fight their way back through the Philistine lines again to get back to David and bring him the water, and make sure to not spill it in the heat of battle.
This kind of devotion to God's man is certainly commendable, but David was enbarrassed by it. He felt that he was not worthy of such sacrifice. He was probably concerned that there would be a competition among his soldiers to outdo each other in such feats of bravery on behalf of David, and that other men would be needlessly endangering themselves in further heroics, playing a game of "Can you top this" and that sooner or later someone was going to get hurt while trying to demonstrate his devotion to David.
It appears that David, in his embarrassment over having put his men in danger just to satisfy his carnal selfish desires, demonstrated his repentance publicly by dumping out the water instead of drinking it, thus proclaiming that he was not going to make such demands on his men again, and that his men should not voluntarily indulge in any such exploits on his behalf. He poured out the water to the Lord, thus showing his conviction that only God is worthy of the supreme sacrifice, and that no mere man, not even the king, was worthy of such sacrifice.
What a fine object lesson that is for all Christian leaders nowadays. All those of us who have been honored in any way, big or small, with any position of leadership among the Lord's people, must be careful to maintain a humble attitude and to avoid taking advantage of the Lord's people. We should not demand or expect of the Lord's people any sacrifices above and beyond what God Himself has demanded of them in His Word.
There are too many so-called Christian leaders who have forgotten the exhortation of the Lord Jesus in Mark 10:45 where He said, For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."
Nowadays we have televangelists who have tens of millions of dollars stashed away in their personal accounts, and yet they are on television pleading for poverty-stricken widow women to send them everything they have got. "Clear out your bank accounts and your retirement plans, send me your gold coins and your gold watch and your gold teeth, send me everything you got and then go to the bank and take out a loan and send me that money too."
There are pastors who brag that if they tell their people to drink poisoned kool-aid, they will do it, and they pass out buttons for the people to wear, proclaiming their 100% support for the preacher. If you ever find yourself in a church like that, get out and find yourself a church which practices a scriptural form of servant leadership as taught in Matthew 20:25-27: "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister, and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant. "
Any Christian leader who has that kind of conception of ministry, of leadership that is earned by serving God's people, is a man who will inspire the people to do things for the Lord and for the Lord's Church without being coerced, without even being asked. And if anyone goes overboard and is really doing too much, that kind of leader will not want to take advantage of such devotion but will do like David did, when David said, "Hey, I am really not worthy of this kind of sacrifice and devotion, only God is worthy."
Let's move on to the story of another devoted servant of David and of the Lord, Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, 1 Chronicles 11:22: "Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man of Kabzeel, who had done many acts; he slew two lionlike men of Moab: also he went down and slew a lion in a pit in a snowy day. "
Now Benaiah was the prototype of the guy who says, "When the going gets tough, the tough get going," and there is nothing much tougher than a snowy day, as far as I am concerned. Benaiah was the guy who could be counted on to get the church bus or church van going and drive his route - even on a snowy day. He would be out there in front of the church building shoveling the snow on that snowy day. He might not be able to get his chariot out of his garage and drive to church if there was too much snow and ice out there in the alley, but he would find another way to get to church, and he would he there on that snowy day.
When Paul told Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:2, "Be instant in season and out of season," that is a test that Benaiah would have passed with flying colors. I can't think of anything more "out of season" than a snowy day, A snowy day is a good day to just stay indoors, to just roll over and pull the covers up over your head and go back to sleep. I don't think a snowy day is a good day to climb down into a pit and get into a wrestling match with a lion. Just think, the sides of the pit might be slippery, what with all that snow and ice, and you might slip and fall, and next thing you know, you have become Purina Lion Chow. It kind of gives new meaning to the term, "Breakfast of Champions."
If I had been there, I think I would have said, "Uh, David, your majesty, your royal highness, sir, can't this wait until tomorrow? By this time tomorrow, the snow will probably be all melted. I mean, this is a subtropical climate we have here in Judah, it's not like Duluth, Minnesota where they have snow cover all winter long." Palestine is at the same latitude as southern Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, and it doesn't snow down there very much, but once in a while they do get snow there, and once in a while they get snow in modern Israel. It doesn't happenvery often, and it makes the news when they do get snow, but occasionally the snow does fall over there. I would think that it doesn't last long and that it would melt very quickly, and in the meantime it might be permissible to just stay home and let a few things go undone until the snow melts.
But Benaiah didn't make any excuses, he didn't ask to wait until the snow had melted. He was a creature of duty, he saw what had to be done and he did it. He climbed down, or maybe slid or tobogganed down that pit, and he slew that lion. There is no record that David or anyone else ordered him to do it. He saw a genuine need and he was instant in season and out of season and he took out that lion. Why it was so urgent to kill the lion, I don't know. There may have been a concern that if the lion was not dealt with right away, he might climb out of the pit and slink over to a nearby village and chow down on some unfortunate schmo. For whatever reason, the lion had to be dealt with, not later but now.
Sometimes there are lions in our own personal lives, or in the life of the church, that have to be dealt with. We are told in I Peter 5:8 to "Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." When the devil comes after you like a lion, what are you going to do - are you going to let him go on the rampage and put off dealing with him until a more convenient time? Or are you going to climb down into that pit and deal with the problem right away before that pussy cat grows up and gets out of hand?
When children in a Christian home are going astray and in need of guidance and discipline by their parents, are we going to deal with it right away and nip it in the bud before it gets out of control, or are we going to let it go and wait for a more convenient time? In the life of any church there are problems that arise that require church discipline because someone is openly, defiantly living in sin, or is stirring up trouble by bringing false doctrine into the church or by slandering and falsely accusing the brethren. Are we going to deal with those kinds of problems right away, or are we going to look the other way and let things go until the church has been destroyed?
Are we going to be decisive, are we going to slay that lion, or are we going to just stroke his mane and coddle him and say, "Nice kitty cat, good kitty cat" while he snarls at us in defiance? In our personal lives, and in the life of this church or any other church, there are going to be times when we are faced with difficult problems and crises that we would rather not have to deal with. When that happens, then it is time to remember our duty and to acquit ourselves like men and women of God and be strong, and go out there like Benaiah and do what needs to be done, even on a snowy day.
"All Things Considered, June 16, 2006 · Michele Norris talks with Tom Junod, whose article about John Walker Lynn appears in the July issue of Esquire magazine. Junod focuses on what Lynn's life is like in prison, where he is serving a 20-year sentence."
The young man, 25 year old John Walker Lynn, grew up in a wealthy upscale neighborhood in California. He converted to Islam, and trained with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and was captured by the US Military. The US sentenced him to prison for illegally aiding the Taliban.
Tom Junod wrote the article which is in the July issue of Esquire. The title of the article is "Can America and Islam Co-Exist?" Tom was unable to interview John, but he talked with his family, friends and with other Muslims who had served time with John, and were now free.
Tom points out that John is a scholarly young man who has become an extremely pious Muslim, even waking himself up at midnight to do the optional Muslim prayer that makes him closer to God.
Part of his sentence is a gag order. He is forbidden to speak Arabic. However, if another Muslim greets him in Arabic, he will answer back in Arabic. He then gets the "hole" for punishment.
He did take the radical oath of Jhad in Afghanistan. He entered into Islam as a youngster, yet he did it because of what he wanted.
Here is Michele's question to Tom that caught my attention (5:55 in the streaming audio):
"What was that that he wanted?"
"I think he wanted purity, and thought that he could not get that in the United States. So he went to travel. In the Koran there are verses saying what a Muslim should do, and what a Muslim should do is leave his home leave his country and take up and defend Muslims in other parts of the world, and I think that John followed that prescription to the letter." (6:15)
"So in the end, do you posit this idea that Lynn is somewhat of a litmus test for how America, a country that is seeped in Christian traditions will eventually deal with Islam, the central question posed in your article, "Can America and Islam Co-Exist? Why is Lynn so important in that question"
"He is almost the perfect Muslim, and he is this white kid from the suburbs of California. He became this symbolic person, and I think that the persecution of John was in some way symbolic, that this was the way we are going to deal with this challenge. And if American ideals and dreams of Muslim purity came to a collision in the person of John Walker Lynn, I think that American ideals of freedom came off the worse for it."
Here is a very intelligent and well-to-do white young man from California suburbia. What was he looking for? Purity! However, he felt he could not find it in the US, so he went overseas. There he found Islam, and committed himself totally to its strict rules as found in the Koran.
Why could he not find purity in the US? How many Christian churches today preach purity, and the strict Christian life as required by the Gospel of Christ?
Should we blame John and the strict Muslims with their Koran for the growth of Islam, or should we blame those who profess to be Bible Believing preachers, teachers and followers their totally irrelevant brand of Christianity. It offers no purity nor real purpose in life.
Christians have fled the field of battle, and are losing the war against the Muslims. The war is a war of ideas. It is the conflict between God's Holy Word and the words of Muhammad as found in the Koran.
Death sentence for not praying. Islamic regime spells out law for Muslims in Somali capital. Posted: July 6, 2006
Somali Muslims protest U.S.
Muslims who fail to pray five times daily will be sentenced to death under the rule of Islamic clerics who have taken over the Somali capital Mogadishu.
"He who does not perform prayers will be considered as infidel, and Sharia law orders that that person be killed," said Sheikh Abdalla Ali, a founder and high-ranking official in the Supreme Islamic Council of Somalia, reported Agence France-Presse.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50949
The edict was issued by a leading cleric speaking at the opening of an Islamic court in the capital last night, who added it was the duty of every Somali to implement the provisions of Sharia, or Islamic law.
The Quran requires Muslims to pray five times daily.
The past few months have been quite rushed,
to put it mildly.
As we mentioned in the last mailing, we had planned to move to the other side of the Massanutten Mountain with Bettie's son. After moving part of our household goods to a large building on the property, the plans changed. He moved to PA, about 2 hours north of us. Now we must move the goods back here.
We again had the privilege to speak at a Bible Conference in OK. The pastor picked us up at the airport in Tulsa, and on the way to Ft. Gibson, we were rear-ended. We had stopped at a yield sign, and a big Suburban stopped behind us. The pastor pulled out a little, and stopped again for traffic. The Suburban pulled out also, but did not stop the second time. The police estimated that the lady hit us a about 15-20 mph.
We have been going to the chiropractor now for some time. Christina is young, and recovered quickly. However, Bettie and I are not so young, and we do not so easily recover. Arthritis complicates the matter even more. Long rides have been out for some time now.
As you can see by one of the articles, I have been doing some reading concerning the South and Lincoln's war of aggression. The truth of that war has been rewritten by the victors, as it is concerning any war, and bold faced lies are being taught as truth. Anyone interested in truth must read the accounts of the war written by those who were involved. There are several publishers who are republishing works written during that time period, Sprinkle being one of them. We have a list of Sprinkle books on our web site.
8/4/06, we welcomed Bettie's 17 grandchild, Abigain Victoria Ethell. (she and her first husband had 3 children. Their oldest, Jennie Chancey just had twin boys, making 7 for her. David and Heather just had their 5th, and Bettie's youngest daughter, Julie, is expecting their 6th in November. ) We were there in time for the home birth, which went very well. Though they live in the country midst fields and pastures and in plain view of the mountains, David has broad band. Thus, I was able to take my computer with us and slide scanner (now over 5,000 WWII images at ww2color.com, with shopping cart), so I could continue most of the things I do. We stayed over a week to help with the children, &c., while Heather recuperated. It was a blessed time. (David has broad-band, so I could work there.)
We are available for special meetings and for filling the pulpit. If we can help, please let us know.
Hello Mr. Need
Enclosed is a check as a gift for that wonderful newspaper you print. I don't need a receipt. My husband and I appreciate that paper.
God be praised you've sent that paper regular to us even when we've never sent a gift before. I am so thankful to God for His faithfulness through you.
By the way, I'm very happy for the way God has been blessing your family. Looks like you folks live in one the most beautiful and historical areas of this our glorious land. Republic !!!
Thank you again over and over.
Sincerely in Christ, (Joyce in Indiana)
Ps. Since 1992, you've sent the examiner. (I think [actually, 1990])
Dear Bro. Need,
Thank you so much for sending The Biblical Examiner along with the disk [Online Bible]. I thoroughly enjoyed it, finding it absolutely loaded with valuable information. Please send me the next issue when it is available.
I also just finished scanning your web site and look forward to examining some of the material carefully. Please accept the enclosed gift to your ministry.
In Christ, Robert Gairing, Ph.D, Stevensville, MT.
I just opened your envelope a few minutes ago and there was The Other jesus. Thank you so much! First thing this morning, I accessed your site and started reading that under Heart of this Ministry. Although I am not finished, what a powerful message; I am still recovering from the shock of it three hours later. I thought at the time I'd like to have a hard copy of this, then I opened the envelope and there it was. Praise The Lord! Having a hard copy will enable me to study it with more ease. Similarly, the hard copy of the Doctrinal Statement will make study easier. Thank you! Bro. Gairing.
PLEASE CONSIDER SUPPORTING THIS MINISTRY. I realize times are hard, and all ministries are encouraging you to help them. May the Lord lay on your heart to help us.
Please note: If any of you plan a trip to the East, plan to stop by and spend some time. There are many important battlefields within an hour of us. There are many battlefields here in the north end of the valley, where Stonewall Jackson sought to hold back Lincoln's invasion of the South. Mannassas, Chancellorsville and Harpers Ferry are about an hour, and Gettysburg is less than two hours. The North entrance of Skyline Drive, one of the most beautiful drives in the nation, is only about 3 miles North of us. It is an hour to the DC beltway, though I sure do not know why anyone would want to go there. It is an extremely dangerous town to visit, with rapes and murders happening right in the prime tourist areas. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR2006071301745_pf.html>
The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 8, 2006, quotes Rick Warren as saying that fundamentalism of all varieties will be "one of the big enemies of the 21st Century." He lumps Christian fundamentalism with Muslim, Jewish and secular fundamentalism, saying, "they're all motivated by fear. Fear of each other." The same article quotes Warren as saying "I'm so tired of Christians being known for what they're against," but apparently Warren has no problem with being known for being against Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalists are sometimes perceived as unloving and negative, but at this point Warren is the one who comes across as unloving and negative toward his fellow Christians. Maybe it is just me, but I have a problem with ecumenicals like Warren who are full of lovey-dovey acceptance for liberals, Catholics and New Agers, but then turn around and brand Christian fundamentalists as "the enemy." This is the same Rick Warren who says it is okay to run off the long-time older members of the church so that the young people can bring in loud, raucous, ear-splitting worldly "Christian rock" entertainment into the church services. Sometimes, older members of the church, who sacrificially helped build and pay for that church, can become "the enemy," too. You just never know.
"SHALLOW HAL" LINDSEY PROMOTES HIS COUSIN'S SECURITIES ON WORLD NET DAILY. Wikipedia reports that "On April I, 2004, [Hal] Lindsey used his World Net Daily column to promote the sale of shares in the Zion Oil and Gas Company, citing Biblical prophecy as a basis for suggesting that there was oil in Israel. Critics have pointed out that Lindsey did not mention that one of the directors of Zion Oil was Ralph DeVore, also a director of Lindsey's ministries and his cousin. DeVore has since resigned from Zion Oil." DeVore's stated reason for leaving Zion Oil was that the Jews were taking over the firm, which he somehow found to be objectionable. Hal Lindsey uses Deuteronomy 33:24 as a "proof-text" for the existence of oil in northern Israel, but the Hebrew word in that verse refers to olive oil (Strong's Concordance, 8081).An entirely different Hebrew word is used for the pitch or petroleum in Genesis 6:14. You probably have a better chance of making money responding to those Nigerian e-mail scams than by investing in stocks peddled by false prophet Hal Lindsey.
(Northern Landmark Missionary Baptist, Apr 2006)
By Gail Sheehy. Published: Parade, June 18, 2006
The biggest fiction behind James Bond is that the fantasy master spy and world-class heartbreaker lived past 40-something. It's not just the death traps and vodka martinis, or even the three packs of cigarettes a day, that would have shortened his life. His naked ring finger would have too. Because real men need wives.
Consider the data: Married menregardless of age, sex, race, income or educationconsistently have been found to be healthier than men who are single, divorced or widowed. This so-called "marriage benefit" begins to kick in right after the wedding, then builds. Husbands ages 18 to 44 are strikingly healthier than bachelors of the same age. At every age, in fact, marriage not only protects men's health but also prolongs their lives. So, what's behind this marriage benefit? ...
[This is just the opening of a very enlightening article. If you did not see it and would like a copy, let me know. Did not the Lord say that it is not good for a man to be alone? How many young men think they do not need marriage, as they pursue their own happiness?]
It starts with the simple act of holding hands and hugginglong and loving embraces, several times a day, according to the latest science.
In the first study of how human touch affects the body's response to stress and threatening situations, Dr. James Coan, a psychologist in the departments of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Virginia, recruited married volunteers, slid them into MRI machines and warned them to expect an electric shock on their ankles. When spouses reached into the machines to hold their respective partner's handa simple yet loving gesture of supportthe part of the brain that registers the anticipation of pain "turned off." The volunteers also said that they felt less distress.
The hand-holding also reduced agitation in the hypothalamus, the area of the brain that controls the release of stress hormones, which turn off our immune function. Eventually, a weakened immune system can make us sick.
"We can't see what our spouses are doing to our brains and emotions until a stressful event arises, but it's going on all the time," says Dr. Coan. "When a wife holds or caresses her husband, she is really reaching into the deepest parts of his brain, calming down the neural-threat response."
Can it be that easy access to a wifely hug after a fallout with a neighbor or a pounding on the golf course is as potent as a tranquilizer or a beta-blocker?
Men Need Nudging
Our proclivities are as old as Adam and Eve: Left to their own devices and vices, men are inattentive to physical symptoms. Even when they do notice, they try to deny them. Women are the health sentries. They pay careful attention to their husbands' well-being, pick up signals and symptoms, and get their men to the doctor. Put simply, most men depend exclusively on their wives to monitor, medicate, nurse and nudge themin the here-and-now and through their waning years.
Having a partner helps men with cancerspecifically, cancer of the prostate or bladdersurvive longer and with a better quality of life, according to studies at the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCLA. The same is true for men hospitalized with heart disease: In a study at the University of California at San Diego, coronary-bypass patients whose wives visited them early and often in the intensive-care unit required less pain medication and recovered more quickly than men without a spouse. Conversely, the patients whose wives did not provide much emotional support fared worse. Which leads us to a harsh reality: Not every marriage is good medicine.
Love Is the Key
Evidence is mounting dramatically that the quality of a marriage is strongly related to health. In fact, a man who has a secure marriage and who continues to be sexually active lives longer, succumbs to illness less often and heals from wounds and surgery faster. Why? It all comes down to insulating a spouse from chronic stressregardless of whether the stress is physical illness or emotional distress, such as anger and anxiety.
The wiring circuits for emotion in the brain turn out to be sitting directly next toand are deeply connected tothe circuits that control heart rate, blood pressure and how much adrenaline one secretes. "You can see the two circuits talking to each other on imaging machines," says Dr. Harry Lodge, an internist in New York City and co-author of Younger Next Year. "A bad emotional state makes needles jump. A really good marriage is harder to measureit's an absence of those jumps."
If a couple is accustomed to fighting and blaming and retreating from each other under duress, the dynamics of the relationship can seriously compromise their bodies' ability to heal. In an experiment conducted by Drs. Janice Kiecolt-Glaser and Ronald Glaser at Ohio State University, long-married couples were given minor blister wounds, then asked to discuss a disagreement. Compared to the harmonious couples, the hostile couples took up to two days longer to heal.
Likewise, cardiologists report that if there is an undercurrent of hostility or resentment in a marriage or a suspicion of extramarital affairsin short, marital discordthe whole cardiac recovery process slows down. Only secure and happy marriages reap the rewards of better health and longevity.
Presumably, the longer a man spends in a contented marital state, the greater the cumulative benefit: Studies show that long-married men live up to five years longer than their contemporaries.
In his practice at Columbia University Medical Center, Dr. Lodge says that he finds it easy to recognize people with truly good marriages: "They cuddle a lot and are deeply affectionate. There's a luminescence to thema deep, calm, subtle glow."
A good marriage, then, gives menas well as the women they lovegood reason to stay alive.
RX for The Good Life
Don't go it alone! The stress of divorce and its aftermath have health consequences that may not show up for years, according to a 2005 study by researchers from the University of Chicago and Duke University.
The longer a man spends in a divorced or widowed state:
the higher his likelihood of developing heart or lung disease or cancer.
the greater his risk of high blood pressure, diabetes and stroke.
the more difficulties he will have with mobility, such as walking or climbing stairs.
Parade, 6/18/06. (I have the complete article if you are interested.)
A friend of mine says that the following is the
reason American English has been rated the most difficult language to learn, even more difficult than Chinese:
The bandage was wound around the wound. The farm was used to produce produce.
The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse. He could lead if he would get the lead out. The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
Since there is no time like the present, he decided it was time to present the present.
A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum. When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes. I did not object to the object.
The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row. They were too close to the door to close it. The buck does funny things when the does are present.
To help with the planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow. The wind was too strong to wind the sail. After a number of injections, my jaw got number. Upon seeing a tear in the painting, I shed a tear.
I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
Yes, English can be bewildering. If we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square, and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
In what language do people recite at a play, and play at a recital?
How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, yet a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
Yes, in American English, your house can burn up as it burns down, you fill out a form by filling it in, and an alarm goes off by going on.
That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible; when the lights are out, they are invisible. And, when I wind up my watch, I start it, but when I wind up this essay, I end it.
By Michelle Singletary. Washington Post, Sunday, July 9, 2006; F01
No doubt you've heard that Warren Buffett, investor extraordinaire, has decided to give most of his wealth away to charity.
Buffett's billions of dollars will be donated largely to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (Buffett and Melinda Gates are directors of The Washington Post Co.)
What's also extraordinary is that Buffett won't be leaving his vast wealth to his three children. As I read reports about his gift, I was struck by Buffett's explanation as to why he's not transferring his riches to his kids.
In a Fortune article, Buffett was quoted as saying: "Certainly neither Susie nor I ever thought we should pass huge amounts of money along to our children. Our kids are great. But I would argue that when your kids have all the advantages anyway, in terms of how they grow up and the opportunities they have for education, including what they learn at home I would say it's neither right nor rational to be flooding them with money. In effect, they've had a gigantic head start in a society that aspires to be a meritocracy. Dynastic mega-wealth would further tilt the playing field that we ought to be trying instead to level."
Buffett is as wise about how to parent his children as he has been in amassing his wealth. ...
"There is more than one way to get to heaven, but this is a great way."
Investor-turned philanthropist WARREN BUFFETT, on one reason he's enthusiastic about his multi-billion-dollar charitable donation.
How many parents indulge their children, so they might have a better life. Buffett is a full-blooded heathen, but he has the right idea about money. However, the Bill & Milinda Gates Foundation raises questions in itself, but it is their money. (World, July 15, 06.) Those who serve mammon as their god expect their god to give them peace and heaven. How sad!!
Why has the US allowed and financed Israel's war against Lebanon? Here is a story that will explain what is taking place.
In search of the truth about the Israel lobby's influence on Washington, by Glenn Frankel, The Washington Post, Sunday Magazine, July 16, 2006; W13
In 1941, David Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding father, tried to see President Roosevelt, but was rebuffed every time. Yet 64 years later Israel, Ehud Olmert, Israel's 12th prime minister, has unlimited access to the White House, as well as to Congress. Why?
It's not that Olmert is a more commanding figure than Ben-Gurion. Far from it. No, it's about power. And not just Israeli power. It's really about the perceived power of the Israel lobby, a collection of American Jewish organizations, campaign contributors and think tanks aided by Christian conservatives and other non-Jewish supporters that arose over the second half of the 20th century and that sees as a principle goal the support and promotion of the interests of the state of Israel.
Thanks to the work of the lobby and its allies, Israel gets more direct foreign aid about $3 billion a year than any other nation. There's a file cabinet somewhere in the State Department full of memoranda of understanding on military, diplomatic and economic affairs. Israel gets treated like a NATO member when it comes to military matters and like Canada or Mexico when it comes to free trade. There's an annual calendar full of meetings of joint strategic task forces and other collaborative sessions. And there's a presidential pledge, re-avowed by Bush in the East Room, that the United States will come to Israel's aid in the event of attack.
On Capitol Hill the Israel lobby commands large majorities in both the House and Senate. Polls show strong public support for Israel a connection that has grown even deeper after the September 11 attacks. The popular equation goes like this: Israelis equal good guys, Arabs equal terrorists. Working the Hill these days, says Josh Block, spokesman for the premier Israeli lobbying group known as AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "is like pushing at an open door."
Not everyone believes this is a good thing. In March two distinguished political scientists Stephen Walt from Harvard and John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago published a 42-page, heavily footnoted essay arguing that the Bush administration's support for Israel and its related effort to spread democracy throughout the Middle East have "inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security."
The professors claim that our intimate partnership with Israel is both dangerous and unprecedented. "Other special interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest," they argue. They go on to say that the war in Iraq "was due in large part to the Lobby's influence," and that the same combine is "using all of the strategies in its playbook" to pressure the administration into being aggressive and belligerent with Iran. The bottom line: "Israel's enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding and paying."
A sweet deal for Israel, in other words, but a very bad one for America. ...
... Abraham Foxman, longtime director of the Anti-Defamation League, told me the paper essentially, and erroneously, blames the Jews for the war in Iraq. Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the United States, who hadn't commented publicly until our interview, called it "tainted, shallow and sloppy . . . just a compilation of old nonsense and garbage that should be rendered into oblivion, where it belongs."
The Israel Lobby is a sacred cow, and anyone who criticizes it is doomed. Moreover, the Lobby is said to have had a heavy hand in engineering the Iraq war.
As the Israel lobby gained strength, William Fulbright, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee saw U.S. support of the Jewish State a serious mistake, threatening regional stability.
...In its early days, Israel was almost exclusively the foster child of liberal Democrats, the affiliation of most American Jews. That began to change in the late 1970s after Menachem Begin became the country's first right-of-center prime minister. He forged a practical alliance with the Rev. Jerry Falwell and other Christian conservatives who saw Jewish rule over the Holy Land as the divinely ordained prelude to the Second Coming of Christ. ...
It was this alliance with Jerry Falwell and other Christian conservatives who saw Jewish rule over the Holy Land as the divinely ordained prelude to the Second Coming of Christ that gave the lobby its power to control the US government, and its treasury.
This Lobby also knew the power of the Holocaust, and effectively used it produce guilt and a culture of "victimhood." Thus, the Lobby's influence and income was greatly strengthened.
It is the Israel Lobby, the pro-Israel money, that helps defeat those who might be too critical of Israel or sympathetic to Arab causes, e.g., Reps. Findley (R) of IL, and McCloskey (R) of CA, and Percy (R) of IL. The defeat of those who criticize Israel makes the message clear: Oppose Israel at your peril.
Bush #1 stood against a $10 billion loan guarantee the Zionist Lobby was trying to press through congress in 1991 over Bush's objections, and had the votes to do so even over a veto. Then Bush made a public statement about "powerful political forces" pressing for the money. The Zionists lost their bid for the money, and Bush lost the next election as the Zionists voted for Clinton.
The Zionist Lobby provides members of congress with research papers and offers advice on drafting legislation on foreign affairs, including the annual foreign aid bill.
Though the Zionist lobby does not give in campaign contributions, its supporters have contributed $58.8 million in individual, group and soft money donations to federal candidates. From 2000 to 2004, the 50 members of the Zionist lobby's board donated an average of $72,000 each to campaigns and political action committees. One in every five board members was a top fundraiser for Bush or Kerry, as the Board finances both sides.
In 2002, in 33 cities, the Zionist Lobby group organized letter-writing campaigns, demonstrations and boycotts against WBUR, accusing them of distorted reporting of Palestinian casualties. It cost WBUR in Boston more than $1 million in contributions.
The lobby also finances trips to "the Holy Land" for dozens of members of Congress and their staffs, building "a sense of kinship and concern" for Israel. It worked on Bush, when, as governor of Texas, he took a helicopter ride over Israel with Sharon.
Since 9/11, Americans have increasingly come to accept the idea that Israel and the United States share not just values, but enemies. A Gallup Poll in February reported 68 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Israel with 23 percent unfavorable, and that Americans support Israelis over Palestinians by 59 percent to 15 percent.
The Lobby threatened congressmen who did not support the passage of " the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act". Though some stood against the pressure, the final bill was passed by 361 to 37.
The Lobby is on first name basis with Rice, Rove and Bolten, as both sides say relations have never been closer.
When Bush tried to stand up to Israel in 2002, the lobby organized congressional resolutions reaffirming solidarity with Israel, which passed the Senate by 94 to 2, and the house by 352 to 21. Supporters organized a "Stand Up for Israel" rally in DC in April, drawing tens of thousands. The crowd booed Bush's representative when he said that "innocent Palestinians are suffering and dying in great numbers." However, they cheered Janet Parshall, host of an evangelical Christian talk show, who declared: "We will never limp, we will never wimp, we will never vacillate our support of Israel." Thus, the Zionist lobby follows in the steps of those who worked the crowd to have Christ crucified, and the "Christians" join in the cry. Mark 15:11. Israel is making a point of destroying as many Christians as possible.1
Their essay [Walt and Mearsheimer, two men with outstanding credentials to speak on the subject] published in the London Review of Books and, in an extended version, on the Kennedy School's Web site thoroughly condemns the U.S.-Israel relationship. Since the Cold War ended, they contend, Israel has become a strategic liability that ignites terrorism against the West and serves as a rallying cry and recruitment poster for bin Laden and al-Qaeda. What's more, there's no particular moral reason for the United States to support Israel. Despite a well-cultivated myth, Israel has always been stronger militarily than neighboring Arab states, racist and discriminatory in treating its own non-Jewish citizens and brutal when it comes to the Palestinians. "The creation of Israel entailed a moral crime against the Palestinian people," the essay states baldly.
The Zionist Lobby is only doing what other special interest groups are doing, only they do it better. They have a free run in Congress, and the media generally refuses to criticize Israel. However, the blame lies basically at the feet of the neoconservatives that group of pro-Israel ideologues, many of them Jewish. They steered Bush toward the Iraq war, hoping to transform the Middle East into their brand of democracy, just as the Northern agitators steered Lincoln into invading the South. Thus, many Americans are justified in suspecting that the war was designed to further Israel's interests. Walt and Mearsheimer hold that there would have been no war without the pressure from the Zionist lobby. Where are the Israeli solders in the conflict?
Of course, Walt and Mearsheimer are charged with anti-Semitism in order to discredit their scholarly study.
The article ended with the opposing view that Israel has nothing to do with American foreign policy. However, one cannot look at the amount of money being given to Israel and the its free reign to brutalize Christians and its neighbors without realizing that something is amiss.
Glenn Frankel is a staff writer for the Magazine and The Post's former Jerusalem bureau chief.
(I have the complete article if you would like to read it.)
1 As the Israeli government continues bombing throughout Lebanon in response to Hezbollah's seizure of two Israeli soldiers and rocket attacks upon Israeli cities, it may be helpful to recall prior Israeli invasions and attacks on Lebanon. The Rules of Engagement that Israel appears to be using now look similar to the rules adapted for the 1982 invasion and subsequent occupation of Lebanon. The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that Israeli missiles "struck predominantly Christian neighborhoods." (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-071706mideast,0,5229469,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines) Lebanese Christians are, for the most part, avowed opponents of Hezbollah, a Muslim religious party. But Israel acts as if all Lebanese are guilty and thus worthy of bombing. (Likewise, Hezbollah appears to consider any Israeli worth killing.)
Few people recognize that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was one of the biggest failures in the history of antiterrorism. There is no reason to expect the current round of attacks and counterattacks to beget an era of peace and good feeling along the Israeli-Lebanon border.
Neither Hezbollah nor the Israeli Defense Force has any right to murder innocent people. But, as in earlier times, there is a danger that U.S. military forces will be sent to Lebanon to try to assuage the chaos.
Excerpted from the 2003 book, Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Justice, Peace, and Freedom to Rid the World of Evil (Palgrave, 2003). http://www.lewrockwell.com/bovard/bovard31.html
Israeli Officials say
Supported by U.S., Campaign Aims to Cripple Hezbollah
Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy
U.S., Israel Aim to Weaken Hezbollah, Region's Militants, by Robin Wright, Washington Post Staff Writer, Sunday, July 16, 2006; A15
Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials. ...
That Tel Aviv is maneuvering us to fight its wars is understandable. That Americans are ignorant of, or complicit in this, is deplorable.
Already, Bush is ranting about Syria being behind the Hezbollah capture of the Israeli soldiers. But where is the proof?
Who is whispering in his ear? The same people who told him Iraq was maybe months away from an atom bomb, that an invasion would be a "cakewalk," that he would be Churchill, that U.S. troops would be greeted with candy and flowers, that democracy would break out across the region, that Palestinians and Israelis would then sit down and make peace?
How much must America pay for the education of this man?
Read more at
Matthew 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
The "Powers that Be" who are allowing illegal
immigration are permitting this nation to divide against itself. The USA is becoming "American" and "Mexican."
The "Strong Man" is being bound by those "Powers" by their refusal to even enforce current immigration laws, and the "house is being spoiled." (V. 29.)
Unless there is a sincere and concerned effort to make this again, "One Nation Under the True God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," our demise is as sure as is the word of God. We are experiencing it here and now.
Chapter 6 closes with Moses giving up all hope of Pharaoh listening to him. Now he obeys God because he has no choice, not because of any hope of being successful before Pharaoh.
This chapter introduces us to two important fixtures of Egypt: the magicians and the Nile.
7:1, A god to Pharaoh.. Pharaoh sure did not respect Moses as such, so what did the Lord mean? Just as the Lord God has a prophet, so Moses has a prophet: Aaron. Just as the pagan gods which Pharaoh worshiped had prophets to speak for them, so Moses had a prophet to speak for him. And don't think that this did not catch Pharaoh's attention. Even though Pharaoh refused to listen or take the words of Moses seriously, he had to take notice that Moses was standing before him as a god with his own prophet. Moses did not speak to Pharaoh, but told Aaron what to say and do, which had to be impressive to Pharaoh. Moses' prophet no doubt a primary reason Pharaoh did not cast Moses out on his ear and chop off his head at their first meeting.
God assures Moses of what He has done to Pharaoh; See, I have made thee a god... This speaks in present tense, I have made thee.. It has already been done even though Pharaoh ignored them the first time.
Moses is authorized to speak and act in God's name and stead, invested by the Lord God to demand obedience from a wicked sovereign prince of this world and given authority and power, in God's stead, to punish disobedience. Moses was a god, but only a "made" god and only a god to Pharaoh.
Vv. 2-8. The Lord tells Moses again that he must speak to Aaron and Aaron will speak to Pharaoh. There will be several results of their speaking to Pharaoh:
1) Pharaoh will send the children of Israel out of his land.
2) And I will harden Pharaoh's heart..., which is an impossible state for man to reconcile with "free will." But through faith we understand... (Hebrews 11:3. See my study in Exodus 4:21.) It was a direct result of God hardening Pharaoh's heart which led to the mighty works and the destruction of Egypt by the Lord. The hardening of Pharaoh's heart was with a purpose. We see in Chapter 6, that God was going to make Israel understand that He indeed was their God, their redeemer and deliver. How is He going to do this? By hardening Pharaoh's heart.
Observe: we desire to see the mighty hand of God without the hardening of Pharaoh's heart and his exhibited hatred against God and God's people.
3) The Lord will use Pharaoh's hardness to show Himself strong. Furthermore, the Lord will use Pharaoh's hardness to judge Egypt.
4) Pharaoh said, "Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go." (5:2) The Lord is going use Pharaoh's hardness to show him and the Egyptians Who He is, v. 5. In addition, notice v. 5, when; in other words, the only thing Egypt understood was military might and power. God was going to destroy Egypt's power through judgments. The result of God's judgment would be that Egypt and Pharaoh would indeed know who the Lord is.
Observe: It is sad that the only way men learn who the Lord is is through judgment, but it is one of his fallen characteristics.
Furthermore, v. 5, Egypt is made to know God by His pouring out His wrath and judgment against her sin; Israel is made to know God by fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, which is interesting. God's covenant-people are to act by faith. This showed up with Moses at the bush, 3:12. In other words and strangely enough, we know that God is in something when the promised results come to pass. (Deuteronomy 13: though the thing might come to pass, if it is not in accord to the total of God's word, it is a lie.) Of course, we must operate by Biblical law, so we place His law into action and we know His presence as He honors our faithful obedience.
V. 6. Moses and Aaron did as the Lord commanded them, so did they. Notice that the word did is used twice in this verse. The Lord only repeats Himself when it is important; therefore, why is the obedience of Moses and Aaron at this time any more important than before?
1) They had tried and failed: Pharaoh had been anything but receptive to the message from the Lord; the pressure revealed Israel's true faiththey turned against Moses and the Lord; Moses was ready to list his experience with Pharaoh as a hopeless case, call it quits and go back to his sheep.
2) V. 7, notes that Moses was 80, Aaron 83. Both Moses and Aaron die at around the age of 120, so their lives were 2/3 complete, yet they are just now starting on their life's most difficult task.
Observe: Let's say that today's average age is 75; the world says that it is time to retire at 50 and let the younger generation take over. With Moses we see that 2/3 of our life is spent in learning that we do not have the answers, and that the Lord alone must do anything; we spend 2/3 of our lives really learning our trade or occupation, then the individual is encouraged to take an early retirement. Some years ago, US News had a series of articles about the career of those who retired at an early age, say around 50, and the occupations which they went into after they retired.
Notice that it looks to me like the most productive age of a person is the last 2/3 of his life. Sam Walton, Colonel Sanders and a multitude of others, didn't get started until they were well into this last 1/3 of their lives. Think of the talent and abilities being lost by society through early retirement programs. If anything, it is the younger ones who should be cut back because society's skills are found in the older generation.
It is not uncommon to meet younger people who feel that because the Lord hasn't done great and mighty things through them by the time they are 30, there is no chance of being used (i.e., I spoke with a young man who was thinking about joining the service at 27 because the Lord hadn't used him greatly yet).
Exodus 7:6, 7, Moses and Aaron obeyed God without complaint, did as He commanded and entered into their life's work when they should have been retiring (according to the world's thinking).
How many good individuals do I know that are "retired" from not only their life's occupation, but from the Lord's work also. Such an attitude is unbiblical and anti-Christian.
THE PROMISE OF FUTURE VICTORY
Pharaoh refused to listen; the people refused to listen; Moses wanted to give up, but God reassures Moses with His word of promise.
Observe: The word of God which was to assure Moses and urge him to go again to Pharaoh was a promise of future victory. This promise was the same basis that he was to go in the first place, 3:12. Motivation by only a promise of future victory is difficult for human nature to endure.
Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Christ, the author and finisher of faith, completed His work by faith: faith in the final victory over death caused Him to be faithful to the will of the Father in the present. His faith caused Him to endure the cross, despise the shame.. which was involved in obedience to the Father. Despised the shame..; Christ lightly regarded the shame that was involved in the cross. Why? Because of what lie before Himthe joy of His exaltation to the right hand of the throne of God.
For us: The God who appeared in the Garden to Adam, is the God of promise. The God who appeared to Noah, both before and after the flood, is the God of promise. The God who appeared to Abraham is the God of promise. The God who appeared to Jacob/Israel is the God of promise (Gen 28). The God who appeared to Joseph is the God of promise (Gen 50:24). And the list goes on and on. In fact, the God of Hebrews 11, the "Faith Chapter," is the God of promise. Notice Hebrews 11 is followed by chapter 12:2; Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, IS the faithful high priest because of a promise.
In other words, faith must be defined as hope in the future. The future will hold the fulfillment of the promises of God. Therefore, to limit the Lord to the present is anti-Christian, for the Christian God is the God of the FUTURE. Notice the many things from Hebrews 12 which are based upon faith (i.e., the future, immediate and distant, is controlled by Divine Providence):
1) v. 3, strength to endure: without faith one will grow weary and faint in his mind.
2) v. 4, a lack of faith results in an inability to resist and stand against sin.
3) v. 5, a lack of faith results in faintness in the chastening of the Lord.
4) vv. 6-12, faith strengthens the individual in the Lord's chastening. Note that only by faith do we understand that the chastening of the Lord is for our future good: that we might be partakers of his holiness. Faith looks past the present chastening to the resulting peaceable fruits of righteousness. (Cf. v.6, Rom 8:28.)
5) v. 13, faith straightens our path and heals the lame; otherwise, the lame would wander from the "strait and narrow."
6) v. 14, faith leads to peace (and holiness) with all men (except, of course, those who are against God's law, Pro 28:4).
7) vv. 15-18, faith is the condition for the grace of God to turn from the lusts of the flesh and the profane things of this world. Faith results in holiness, without which no man shall see God.
8) vv. 19-26, faith looks to Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant. Faith will not refuse to obey the words spoken by the Lord from the new city of the living God, the church, as Israel refused to obey the words spoken from the mount.
9) v. 27, faith will not be shaken as the world around us crumbles. It is built without Christ and the law-word of God, so it shakes so hard it collapses.
10) v. 28, faith provides the grace to serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear as the kingdoms of men shake and collapse.
Obviously, a lack of faith reverses the above 10 points.
The first promise given to Adam was of future victory to the obedient people of Godevery promise, including the promise of the Father to the Son, was of future victory to the obedient people of God. Without this faith in the God of the future, it is impossible to please God.
Our strength to stand comes from faith in the future victory of our Lord over all the opposition of the enemy. Moses' confronted Pharaoh only after all hope was gone and his total confidence was in the Lord: "If anything is going to be done, the Lord will have to do it."
The command of God for Moses to confront Pharaoh again after all else had failed was based upon faith that God: 1) had indeed made him a god to Pharaoh, 2) that Pharaoh would send Israel out of his land, 3) that Pharaoh's heart would be hardened, and 4) that God would perform all His covenant-promises.
Christianity has lost its strength to stand against the evil Pharaohs of our day because it has lost its faith in the covenant-promises of God. It seems the doctrine of "no hope" has gripped Christianity, as Christians continue on with life with no hope for any kind of victory for Christ this side of His return with a sword. Hopelessness has overtaken the church, and we see a self-fulfilling prophecy taking place. Without faith it is impossible to please God, but faith in what? Faith that He will come back some day? Faith that He is working all things for His own glory? Faith that He is in total control, and that Divine Providence is active? Obviously, the primary sin that must be dealt with is the sin of faithlessness.
Faith cannot be identified as a good feeling about anything. Faith must be defined as confidence in the promises of God, for Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness.
Faithlessness, as exhibited by George Müller, allowed the enemy to take over the world. We are seeing that enemy's works all around us in the economic, political and social collapse. The following is from Death of the Church Victorious, chapter 52:
Müller founded the Scriptural Knowledge Institution (SKI), which did more to spread the destructive tenets of Brethrenism than probably any one other event of his time. Müller's Institution was a main-stay of Hudson Taylor's China Inland Mission in its early days. (A History of the Brethren Movement. Roy Coad. Pp. 52, 53. Great Britian: The Paternoster Press, 1968. Reissue, Greenwood, SC: The Attic Press, Inc., n.d. [Coad, History] Mr. Coad is fourth generation in this movement. The millennial system of passivity, other- worldliness/non-involvement in "worldly matters," and their distinctive, unique prophetic views. The system neutralized Christianity wherever it went.) In his February 25, 1834, journal entry, Müller gave six reasons for forming "a new Institution [SKI, ed.] for the spread of the gospel." Although this writer certainly agrees with five of Müller's reasons, he must take serious exception with Müller's first reason:
The end which these religious societies [then in existence, ed.] propose to themselves, and which is constantly put before their members, is, that the world will gradually become better and better, and that at last the whole world will be converted [sic.] To this end, there is constantly reference made to the passage in Habakkuk ii. 14: "For the Earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea;" or the one in Isaiah xi. 9: "For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." But that these passages can have no reference to the present dispensation, but to the one which will commence with the return of the Lord, that in the present dispensation things will not become spiritually better, but rather worse, and that in the present dispensation it is not the whole world that will be converted, but only a people gathered out from among the Gentiles for the Lord, is clear from many passages of the divine testimony, of which I only refer to the following: "Matthew:13\:24-30, 36-42" Matt. xiii. 24-30, and verses 36-43, 2 Tim. iii. 1-13, Acts xv. 14.
A hearty desire for the conversion of sinners, and earnest prayer for it to the Lord, is quite scriptural; but it is unscriptural to expect the conversion of the whole world. Such an end we could not propose to ourselves in service of the Lord...
1. We consider every believer bound, in one way or other, to help the cause of Christ, and we have scriptural warrant for expecting the Lord's blessing upon our work of faith and labor of love; and although, according to Matt. xiii. 42-43, 2 Tim. iii. 1-13, and many other passages, the world will not be converted before the coming of our Lord Jesus, still, while he tarries, all scriptural means ought to be employed for the ingathering of the elect of God.
(The Life of Trust; being a Narrative of the Lord's dealings with George Müller, written by Himself. Pp. 109, 110, 113. A new edition brought down to the present time, including his visit to America. NY: John B. Alden. Entered into the Library of Congress in the year 1873, by Gould and Lincoln. Copyright, 1877.The first American edition was published in 1860. See also, The Origins of the Brethren. 1825-1850. P. 129. Harold H. Rowdon. London: Pickering & Inglis Ltd., 1907.)
The then operating missionary societies "constantly put before their members" the hope of Christianizing the world before Christ's return. That goal of Christianizing the world Müller found unscriptural. Lacunza's "dispensational" view of Matthew twenty four, which became popular in his lifetime, caused Müller to abandon any hope that the gospel could change the world for Christ. It also caused him to say that those expecting the Gospel of Christ to Christianize the nations are not serving the Lord. Müller, therefore, led in changing the goal of missionary endeavors from Christianizing the world's nations to simply "soul saving." Accordingly, the missionaries trained by the SKI went over the world to "save souls," yet they were convinced that it was unscriptural to hope that the gospel message could bring about godly social change. The expectations of their faithless gospel were met. Müller's ideas united with Darby's, who, echoing Irving's words, condemned all who desired to convert the world to Christ.
Note the connection above. Müller's SKI was "a main-stay of Hudson Taylor's China Inland Mission in its early days..." Accordingly, the majority of China Inland Missions were faithless students from Müller's school. They had been taught that it was not only hopeless to "Christianize" the world, but that it was "unscriptural to expect the conversion of the whole world." In Müller's mind, one could not serve the Lord with such an unscriptural faith.
"The early decades of the twentieth century were perhaps the years of greatest enthusiasm for foreign missions..." However, notice that the message taken to the four corners of the world was one of hopelessness and defeat. Taylor and his mission work, though saving many souls, delivered to the Chinese a hopeless message of defeat Taylor, with the help of Müller's Scriptural Knowledge Institution neutralized Christianity, leaving the Chinese "helpless against the military onslaught of the Communists." Fully expecting an imminent "Rapture," multitudes of Chinese Christians were tortured and slaughtered. On the other hand, non-millenarians fled. Hiding safely in the mountains, they kept Chinese Christianity alive. Moreover, China's modern attitude toward forced abortion must, at least in part, be attributed to those who taught a generation of Chinese Christians that it was sin to be involved in social programs and issues. (Ibid., p. 199.)
The date for the great missionary effort into China was after 1865. The Russian Bolshevik Revolution was in 1917. The Revolution spilled over into China, and the Communist gained a foothold in the 1925-27 revolution. However, Mao Zedong did not take total power until after WW II, and the Nationalists fled to Taiwan in 1949.
Facts speak for themselves, and they speak loudly for our day. The faithless message that it is a sin to seek to "Christianize" the world has resulted in the whole world being given over to the wicked one.
May God see fit to deliver us from faithlessness.
Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
Habakkuk 2:14 For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
I do not have the space to develop the victory here and now aspect of the Christian faith. However, let me urge you to check my study on Psalms 45 as posted at our web site.
Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say
June 30 (Bloomberg) __ The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.
July 23, 06
MARTYRDOM IN MISSOURI, a history of religious proscription, the seizure of churches, and the persecution of ministers of the gospel, in the state of Missouri DURING THE LATE CIVIL WAR, and under the "Test Oath" of the New Constitution. By Rev. W.M. Leftwich, D.D. Southwestern Book Publishing Co. 1870. (Spiral bound copies of the pages. Extremely rare) 2 Volumes, $20 each, post paid. Vol. I, 436 pgs, Vol. II, 445 pgs.
Martyrdom in Missouri
Ten years before the firing on Ft. Sumpter, the war, falsely called "The Civil War" had its beginning in Missouri. These books detail the bloody hand of tyranny in both church and state. Rev. Wm. Leftwich records truthfully all that occurred, being a victim and observer of those fateful years. A must read.
Pastor Lloyd Sprinkle (Sprinkle Publications)
THE CHRISTIAN AND CIVIL GOVERNMENT, Romans 13. By Pastor John Weaver. Trade paperback, 200 pages. $14
DEATH OF THE CHURCH VICTORIOUS. 507 pgs. Trade paperback, $25.
THE RAPTURE PLOT, Dave MacPherson. 300 pgs. Trade paper back. $21.
THE INCREDIBLE SCHOFIELD AND HIS BOOK, Joseph M. Canfield. 394, pgs. Trade paper back. $26.
ONLINE BIBLE for Windows, Ver 2.0. $40.
(All Post Paid, US) Ovid Need (PO MO made to Ovid Need preferred.), The Biblical Examiner, 9017 Stonewall Jackson Hwy, Front Royal VA 22930 (Or order over web, using PayPal. See the web site.)
Complete list at:
[Home] [Topics] [Bookstore]