Early Christian America

We don’t expect much from the church of Jesus Christ and therefore we  discount the church. Gibbon wrote that 5 things were responsible for winning the Roman Empire… one was the miraculous of the first century… and on par with the miracles, is the Church. The Roman Empire faced all sorts of adversaries, but could not take on the simple church.

By the Mystery of God we mean “The Final Solution”…that which explains all things…why we are here…why we’re here in this place, why there is an America…a Russia…a China…why there is a certain series of events, why your business, your calling, why the seemingly untimely death of a loved one…In the Mystery of God the why of life is answered and in the center of the mystery is the Church.

Maybe we discount the Church because it has been so lack luster in her performance in the last 100 years, and we can’t see the latent power that resides in her. She is a humble enigma and when God visits her, He shakes the entire world with her. He calls us to agree and then to act.

The Lord is the defender of his Church and He will effect Reformation, come what may. The 3rd person of the Trinity is absolutely irresistible and will move with or without our consent.

Don’t miss the greatest event on earth…the Church of Jesus Christ…Protect and keep her.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And so, just when you thought the Obama administration couldn’t stoop any lower — they somehow managed to do so…fearlessly! There is no fear about being impeached for the following:

Sen. Kyl stated, in a video clip posted on YouTube in which the senator is speaking to a local Tea Party crowd:

“Here’s what the President said. ‘The problem is, he said, if we secure the border, then you all [Republicans] won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.’”

In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They won’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform.”

Did you understand what the senator said? He stated that the President of the United States is willfully permitting our country’s immigration laws to go unenforced so as to coerce passage of his immigration “reform,” a bill that includes a “path to citizenship” (read: amnesty) for millions of illegal immigrants.

What was it Obama’s chief of staff, the infamous Rahm Emanuel, once said:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”.

That is blatant “Fabian Socialism” a phrase Americans better quickly learn.

Fabianism: The Real Immigration Crisis

Convinced that “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”, Fabian socialists believe in a step-by-step approach to disrupting free government and a free market. To accomplish that goal:

 

1. They further believe such free markets and government can only be socialized by instituting legislation, court rulings, treaty law, and executive actions that are disruptive of the human action and economy.
2. As the economy falters, people are made to believe the fault is the free market and an antiquated Constitutional Republican form of government.
3. So, Fabian professors /activists /lawyers /politicians work hard at gaining and keeping control of both the education field and media (which is the reason they hate the Internet – they don’t YET have CONTROL there). Fabianism has always believed and acted on the premise that to control education and media is to alter the premises on which opinions are formed and literally enable a change in thinking. That way, people think they are “drawing their own conclusions.”
4. Crisis by crisis is the proven way to get control, incrementally. Example: “stimulus” means “inflationary spending”. Inflation devalues the money, AND skews investments (Remember: ALL businesses are someone’s investment). If a business increases inventories, markets products/services, and hires more workers BASED UPON INFLATED PRICES AS IF SUCH INFLATION REPRESENTED REAL CONSUMER DEMAND, that business will be damaged far more than if it had not done any business at all!
5. If there is no crisis, Fabians ALWAYS work to create one, so as to have an excuse to pass legislation, etc. and accelerate the change process.
6. Put Fabians in charge of “managing” the crisis, and you’ve just put the fox in charge of the chicken coup. Dialectics is the science of controlling BOTH sides of a controversy to as to control its outcome. Fabians have long used dialectical tactics.
7. Fabians count on the fact that most Americans cannot fathom the depth of the depravity involved in such thinking and activity.

Fabian interference in the economy: NAFTA, CAFTA creates joblessness “down south”

So, an immigration CRISIS, if not fully created, was at least accelerated and engineered by the passage of Clinton’s NAFTA, Bush’s CAFTA – destroying Central American small businesses and employment with extremely low priced imported goods. The crisis is backed by government subsidies in money and legal favoritism that destroys small farmers and small crafts below the border. So, hordes of jobless immigrants now risk all to cross the border to feed their families.
Throw in the legal impediments to enforcing border security (like the Obama Administration’s attack upon Arizona’s immigration laws), you then have a MAJOR crisis. I am no admirer of the Arizona law. I am suspicious of Fabian involvement in its framing, making it more onerous to defend and easily hated. But the Obama antics are illustrative nonetheless. Remember, dialectics, media and the money behind them all.

Make no mistake: If there was ever any doubt that President Obama is hell-bent on legislating an amnesty-for-illegals “reform” before the November elections — when he is at risk of losing his veto-proof majorities in Congress — then his shocking statement to Senator Kyl should dispel those suspicions once and for all.

-submitted, Wayne C. Sedlak, ICHR

It is proverbial that there is always a place where a person, church, or nation is vulnerable. With Achilles it was his heal, with the Assyrian army that attacked Israel in the 8th century B.C. it was plague.

The Lord has given his church every means to overcome each foe it meets, and early he makes the victory comparatively easy, whereas if His church waits to engage the enemy on Biblical grounds, the problem becomes more costly to solve, and the solution probably will entail as many obstacles as solutions.

An example of this is the prayer meetings that sprang up, beginning in New York City in 1859. America was being pulled apart by the institution of slavery. The Supreme Court had (with a Roman Catholic judge writing the majority opinion) the Dred Scott decision which made fleeing Christian slaves subject to capture and return even in states that did not allow slavery. The Biblical injunction to free converted slaves after six years of service had been outlawed by courts in New York and Virginia, so there was no solution.

The Prayer Meeting organizers allowed prayer for every subject except church rule and slavery. The very reason God had allowed and brought into being the meetings were forbidden! The churches, Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian split, one denomination in the North and another in the South.

The result was the Civil (or rather an uncivil) war. The Unitarians who pushed the war made much of it and used the confusion to change the laws of our nation. The reason was not the strength of the Unitarians, but the confusion and refusal to face the issues by the Church of Christ.

England had abolished slavery already on Biblical Christian grounds. The Church and State had agreed and passed legislation under Wilberforce to make this happen.

Today we are faced with a similar situation. When we look at the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics we find nothing about the economic factors that make apologetics work. There is nothing about the importance of the church talking in economic terms, as God did when describing redemption, inheritance of, for example of the Holy Spirit, of the deposit (down payment) of the Spirit in our inheritance. Nothing. In the treatment of Thomas Aquinas, there is nothing about his economic system, though that under girded the serf/noble system in Europe for centuries, and still is a major impetus to the Nazi/ Fascist and Socialist/progressive platforms today. There is nothing about how Protestant/ Free Market countries outperform Romanist Socialist ones. It is as if apologetics were an ivory tower enterprise, not a whole life project.

Application: When we have a speaker like Jim Wallis from Sojourners speaking to our children about earth care in socialistic terms, we have no answers but to agree.

The same is true of Protestant Eschatology. When we look at the older writings of Protestants, such as Albert Barns or John Gill we find references to Islam in Revelation 9 and other places. Yet as we consider newer writings, as the Baker series of encyclopedia on Missions, we find there is no reference to Islam in the Bible according to their article. All we have as a negation of the Islamic claim for Biblical verification. When we look for reference to the Roman church in these volumes, there is none. It is as if somebody from the Public School was ordered to write the book, but to omit the Protestant view of some very important subjects.

Application: We think Romanists are our allies when it comes to some programs like Pro Life ones.

Ephesians 6 tells us to put on the full armor of God. That armor has the breastplate of righteousness, the helmet of salvation, a shield of faith and more, but no chinks.

Until or unless these chinks in American Christian armor are repaired the prospect for another correction and reproof like the Civil (Unitarian) war could be our only alternative.

For our King,

David Paul

In 1066 A.D., the Normans conquered England. From that time forward, the kings which followed strove to develop their power at the expense of historic English rights and liberties. Policies for extending the royal prerogative were, in fact, the legacy of the Norman Conquest. One such king, King John, tried every means possible which an unscrupulous and Ingenious mind could devise. Many suffered at the ruthless exercise and ever-increasing expansion of the royal jurisdiction, at the expense of local courts of the barons. Often, royal seizures of properties, assets or persons, took place over the protests of such "lesser" authorities. The king’s tyrannies increased as he crushed any individual or family who resisted. Many tried to defend themselves under the rules of the King’s new statutes and, of course, found the royal prerogative inevitably prevailed.

The abuses of John wore many. He experimented with all sorts of taxes and levies. Lands, castles, timbers, grains and other properties were seized on pretext of royal prerogative or as forfeiture for some alleged wrongdoing of its owner. The owner often had no ability to raise a defense to stop the seizure or recover the lost goods or lands. Up against the comparatively infinite powers of the state, no single individual or family van prevail without constitutional power exerting a contrary pressure in his behalf. Hence, the necessity of upholding and maintaining constitutional safe-guards.

John aroused further opposition when he secured exorbitant sums on inheritances, raised immense amounts on the trade of military services and literally sold both maidens and widows who were heiresses in his custody.

In addition, King John was licentious and callous. He seduced the sister of one great baron and quite probably others. He was responsible for the murder of his nephew, Arthur, Duke of Brittany. He then went on to crush the family of another hero whose wife simply made an unguarded comment concerning the murder. She and her son were starved to death in a dungeon, and her husband and another son were driven into exile.

However, some of the clergy, which had opposed the king for his excesses in the past, began to move the people with their public preaching and pronouncements against the sins of the king. Such preaching was vital for creating conviction of conscience. One of the least appreciated facts in the contest of tyranny and freedom lies in the fact that individuals need righteous principles to move their hearts to resist the evil exercise of authority. Such righteous principle is God’s regal prerogative. His Law creates authority in church, family, and state in the Name of His universal, regal authority. Therefore, His Authority must unbind the cords which bind the populace in servile fear, blind ignorance, or confused submission to authority.

Public pressure began to build against the tyrant. The common people looked to the local magistrates–the barons of the land–to stand in the gap to resist the tyranny of the king. The preaching of the clergy emboldened many. As a result, many barons assembled and declared their resistance to the King. In addition, they declared it to be treason against England for any to stand in support of John who had proven himself to be the enemy of the realm by his sins against God and man. The people rallied behind the revolt of the barons who represented them, thus forming what they called "The Army of God". Finally, in the meadow of Runnymede on June 15, 1215, the barons forced King John to sign a new Constitution which guaranteed the rights and liberties of the people. That Constitution is known to history as the Great Charter–Magna Charta.

Magna Charta: The Precedent

In this contest with King John, one important precedent was set. The English people applied an important principle which the church has always been called to teach from the Scriptures. Put simply, no authority has an absolute right to do as it pleases–including kings or any in authority. If a "higher" magistrate engages in lawless acts, it is the duty of those whom he represents to resist him and even divest him of his authority. Those who do this are the "lesser" civil authorities who, in God’s eyes, are NOW the highest legitimate authority until the upper office has its integrity restored and its calling renewed . . . or is eliminated entirely.

In the Scriptures, Ehud was sent by the representatives of the people of Israel (Judges 3) with a "gift" to the Moabite tyrant, Eglon, whom they had judicially condemned as a usurping ruler. That "gift" was Ehud’s sword in the belly of the tyrant. Who authorized the kind of action taken by Ehud? Put bluntly–"Civil (covenant) headship provided by lesser magistrates".

Headship in the families which constitute the community creates "headship" in the community in the positions of civil ministry (police, aldermen, judges, mayor, etc.). Such headship in the community creates headship in the upper tiers of rule (state and federal in our system). But authority is only authorized to implement righteous precepts such as "Thou shall not kill or steal" which are designed to protect life and property. There is no authorization to violate the standards of life as protected in the righteous principles given by God. When the upper authority violates such principles then it codes the right of authority for which it was created, This is a contractual (covenanted) issue between it and the people as represented in their covenant heads In the community. In life, if you violate the terms of a contract, then you are sued for breach of covenant.

That is the rule in daily life . . . and that is the rule for government. The only difference between this and daily life is that God has limited the kinds of terms which any authority may contract in order to impose rule. In a word, government is to be "limited"–tied constitutionally to righteous principles and standards. At Runnymede, John was sued for breach of covenant. And the lesser magistrates–the barons (who, in feudal England represented the people under them by feudal contracts)–imposed constitutional restraints upon the powers of the King so as to end his tyranny. Like Ehud they brought a "gift" to John–their swords–which St. Paul tells us is the strength of rulers to those who ought to fear (Rom. 13:4). It truly is a gift, a gift of justice in the hands of those to whom justice is entrusted civil magistrates.

Lexington and Concord Two Plus Two is a Mystery if…

Not too long ago, this author had opportunity to hear yet another clergyman denounce the American "rebels" of the American War for independence. Rejecting the wonderful results of liberty, Constitutional order, prosperity and peace which the war brought as justification for their actions, he argued (as many pastors, theologians, and professors have argued in their pulpits and classrooms) that the colonists wrongfully resisted the Brits at Lexington and Concord. This action was not justified by Biblical ethics he asserted. The British Parliament and King were the "authorities ordained by God" to which submission should have boon rendered. When asked what the colonists should have dens to be rid of tyrannical abuse, his comment was "that’s a mystery" but "they should never have taken the law into their own hands."

Hum . . . a "mystery" he says. It’s axiomatic that there are at least two ways to get a mystery. First, a mystery may be truly so because a thing has great depth and needs further illumination. However, the more common way in which "mystery" develops is simple. . . people reject the right answer and remain wrong. Two plus two will ALWAYS be a mystery, IF one rejects four as an answer.

Back to our clergyman for a moment. What he refused to acknowledge was… the facts. First, the colonists were never "under" the authority of a usurping Parliament. By colonial charter (covenant) they had their own legislative bodies in which they had their own representation by people from their own communities. Thus, they complained that, when Parliament unlawfully taxed them, this was "taxation without representation". They neither had (nor wanted) representation in the English Parliament. In other words, Parliament was the usurping (rebellious) party in this issue.

However, the colonists did have a legal relationship to their rightful sovereign, King George Ill. But that relationship was governed by their charters, and the English BE of Rights of 1689, the defining document for all Englishmen in all of the British domains. Too, when the colonists took their stand on Lexington green, they were authorized to do so by local committees operating under the authority of their colonial legislatures and the Continental Congress which the colonies had elected to represent them in this contest with their King. In other words, the colonists were organized and authorized by their "lesser magistrates" in each colony and the Continental Congress. (In fact, the famous "Minutemen" was an historical institution of the old New England Confederation of those united colonies,) They were defending their colonial charters made with the Kings of England over the many years of their existence as colonies.

In addition, they were defending constitutionally guaranteed rights under the reigning constitution of Englishmen–the English Bill of Rights. More specifically, they refused to be disarmed because such an act was illegal according to the English Bill of Rights which guaranteed the right of "every Protestant" to own and use arms. The reason the Bill of Rights protected the people against disarmament (which is the reason the Brits were marching through Lexington on their way to the cache of weapons owned officially by the colony of Massachusetts at Concord) was their need for arms to render support to their "lesser magistrate." who were trying to negotiate with the Grown for redress of grievance. If they were disarmed, then their representatives would have no "clout" with the tyrant. Remember, like all tyrants, King George ultimately "argued" his point by resorting to the sword . . . Like when his troops burned the entire city of Falmouth, Maine… Or when they illegally used police powers to seize property with their infamous “writs of assistance”… Or when the Brits seized the Americans on the high seas by "impressing" free citizens into the British navy for permanent naval service to the Crown. The only thing which restrained the King at all from further usurpations was the possibility that his subjects would revolt out from under him. . . which they did when he overturned his charter, their liberties and all lesser authorities in America.

The Black Regiment: The Missing Link

In this century, many clergy have been responsible for any number of infamies. Reasoning like Neanderthals, they allowed the Darwinists to convince the nation (and its churches) that all there was left to "prove" evolution was the so-called "missing link". Actually, no single theory of evolution prevails anywhere. What prevails are literally thousands of different theories, mutually contradictory to each other.

The same sad fact has prevailed in other areas of culture. The clergy has failed to supply the necessary "linkage" for their people to correctly understand the proper relationship of church and state . . . or education and the family . . . or life and the preborn. Actually, the true "missing link" has been the clergy of Christ who refuse "to get into the culture war" which is destroying the souls of the flock they are sworn to defend and uprooting the heritage the Christian faith bequeathed to this great country.

The "Black Regiment" was the missing link for its day and was responsible for providing the conviction and wisdom necessary in winning a war against the cruelty of the British government. What wa~ the "Black Regiment"? Actually, it wasn’t a regiment at all, it referred to the American Presbyterian, Congregationalist, end Baptist clergy.

British sympathizers (Loyalists) so named them because of the black robes worn by the ministers when they ascended their pulpits each Lord’s Day. The name "stuck". Colonial enemies knew that the seeds of what the British called "sedition" or "revolution" were being sown in the pulpits of America. Without the outspoken, tenacious and courageous leadership exhibited by the pastors of the "Black Regiment", it is doubtful whether American independence could ever have been achieved.

It should be remembered that the clergy provided the conviction for support of the Magna Charta… The clergy have always been the necessary link between conviction and action. Without conviction, people will be neutralized by fear or manipulated by false guilt or impaled by ignorance and a false submission. Most often in history when corruption is dominant, such corruption is universally operative at all levels of civil authority, not just the "greater magistrate". "For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof but by a man of understanding the state thereof shall be prolonged" (Prov. 28:2).

Only the clergy hold the possibility of authoritative pronouncements against evil in government as John the Baptist demonstrated when he pronounced against Herod’s corruption. "They that forsake the law praise the wicked; but such as keep the law contend with them (Prov. 28:4). If the pulpits supply the conviction for the people . . . the next step will be to generate both the proper explanation and leadership for the issues of the day. From this mix, God historically has brought forth conviction in the hearts of lesser magistrates AND support for them when they do take a righteous stand to uphold their offices and defend principle in the land God has given them.

The Key is the Clergy

Sometimes a generation such as ours cannot understand the principles which motivated an earlier generation. It becomes easy to mistake a principled stand with arrogance. Arrogance is usually understood as a refusal to negotiate. Compromised generations are usually experts in the art of negotiation. Unfortunately, such a generation becomes an easily manipulated one. It always can be expected to "deal" and most options are predictable. After all, "everyone has his price."

As a result, any would-be tyrant has plenty of elbow room to maneuver the negotiable affections of a people, especially if authority and media are on his side. In other words. people usually do not see the true nature of tyranny as it takes advantage of the moral, economic or political crisis which gives opportunistic “Hitlers" leverage to transform crisis into control. Remember, Hitler first deceived the people before ho could control them. Then again, the primary purpose of deceit is control, i.e., to create a monopoly of interpretation surrounding any given issue.

The only thing which would tend to scramble the plans of such clever Machiavellian operators is a contrary position which combines virtue, knowledge, trust, authority, and access to the people on a regular basis. Inter the clergy.

The key to unlocking the potential stranglehold of oppression is a position which cares little for prevailing fads of opinion, can discern a thing without waiting for a majority vote on it, and has conviction enough to "let he yeas be yeas and his nays be nays.” Conviction creates his dogmatic stand. His love compels it as a duty.

The "Black Regiment" spoke dogmatically concerning the nature of the evil they discerned. They did so before evil became so disproportionately large and powerful that excising the tumor becomes excising the patient. Today, the clergy stands by, allowing a corrupted society to become more so. Until the clergy provides the moral mandate to decry evil, there will be no true peace, no true tranquility, no continuing prosperity and n