|
| FRIDAY, MAY 23, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Here in South Carolina two bills are working their way through the state Legislature that would set guidelines for public displays of religion, one related to prayer at governmental meetings and the other outlining the manner in which the Ten Commandments can be displayed in schools or government buildings. State Sen. Mike Fair, one of the sponsors of the bill that would create the South Carolina Public Invocation Act, said the intent is to give state support to government bodies that choose to pray before meetings while outlining the manner that such prayers are constitutionally acceptable. He said, "It gives deference to the notion of God by prayer but cannot be sectarian in the sense that it's a Christian prayer or some such." He went on to say that the bill would require the state attorney general to defend any local government that was sued for prayer, but wouldn't require government bodies to pray: "It provides cover for those districts or those entities that want to have prayer or that want to post religious artifacts and historical documents. It gives state support for those who choose to do it. It is not a mandate." I have no doubt that the intention of those who are sponsoring this Bill is good. I know they are seeking to withstand the constant attacks from bodies such as the ACLU. I appreciate that they are seeking to support small communities whose representatives are often scared into compliance with the threats from radicals by the prospect of having to spend a lot of money out of their limited resources to defend themselves in court. As I say, I can see the good intention that lies behind this Bill. But I find it worrisome. I fear that in an effort to accommodate God and His enemies under one Public Invocation Act, we will end up enshrining a religious observance that will bring the wrath and not the blessing of God. Notice carefully the wording with which Senator Fair defends his Bill: "It gives deference to the notion of God by prayer but cannot be sectarian in the sense that it's a Christian prayer or some such." In other words, by law the name of the Lord Jesus Christ would be banned from all prayers offered in any sphere in which the State may be deemed to be involved. This is not an advance against humanism but a retreat into a Christless form of religion that is abominable to God and should be abominable to us. Now let me make it clear that I am not saying that the sponsors of the Bill are either Godless or Christless. That is not my point. My point is that good men sometimes do things with the best of intentions that have unintended consequences. Let me make this absolutely clear: you cannot please God and pray in a manner that is acceptable to Him if you deliberately ban all reference to the person and work of His Son. To expect Christian ministers to pray such prayers is an insult both to them and to Christ. God has highly exalted His name. He has set it above every other name. Soon He will make every tongue confess it and every knee bow at its mention. God allows no other approach to Him than through Jesus Christ. So how on earth can we be blessed in accommodating some "notion of God" by legally excluding all reference to Christ? It's time for us and our legislators to think again. They should not try to force non-Christians to pray but they should tell them that they cannot stop us from praying in the name of the Lord Jesus, at governmental meetings or anywhere else. Otherwise, we'd be better without the charade of public prayers that ban the name of Christ. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
As the result of such actions as the consecration of the openly homosexual Bishop of New Hampshire, eleven Anglican churches in Virginia seceded from the Episcopal Church and its Virginia diocese. Very often, in the event of a congregation's secession, big denominations lay claim to their property, which in many cases may be valued at millions of dollars. The threat of losing all they have built and paid for is often enough to keep disaffected congregations within the denominational fold. However, the eleven Virginia churches decided that they would fight to keep their property and try to stop the denomination from which they were seceding from filching it from them. The churches formed what they called "the Anglican District of Virginia" (ADV), a coalition that includes the historic 2,000-member Falls Church in the city of Falls Church, and the 1,300-member Truro Church in Fairfax - formerly two of the Episcopal Church's largest and wealthiest congregations. On seceding from the American Episcopal Church, the ADV congregations voted to align themselves with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), which is sponsored by the Church of Nigeria. So the Episcopal Church and its Virginia diocese sued the churches, their clergy and vestries to recover their assets and property. In the first stage of what is set to be a multi-stage trial, the breakaway churches prevailed in court. An 1867 Virginia statute says that a congregation is entitled to retain its property if the majority of its members vote to leave the parent denomination. The Episcopal Church and the diocese had argued that a legal division had not occurred, and that the statute was therefore non-applicable. Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge, Randy Fellows, disagreed and said that evidence of a division at all three levels "is not only compelling, but overwhelming." He thus found in favor of the breakaway churches. However, the denomination is going to fight on. The constitutionality of the Statute will be decided at a hearing May 28 and the court has yet to rule on the property issues. But the first stage victory for the seceding churches is huge. The Episcopal Church is determined to fight this out to the bitter end. It gripes that those who have left it will "continue to occupy Episcopal Church property while loyal Episcopalians [will be] forced to worship elsewhere." A more blatant exhibition of hypocrisy would be difficult to find. The Episcopalians who support the national denomination have betrayed some of the most fundamental beliefs of historic Episcopalianism. In fact, it is impossible to be a "loyal Episcopalian" and remain in fellowship with a church that has so deeply apostatized as the American Episcopal Church. Each side in this dispute has spent some $2m in legal costs. At stake are assets valued at over $40m, assets accrued by the churches, not by the diocese or the denomination. The Episcopal Church wants to get its hands on those assets, not just for the sake of the assets themselves but as a way of warning other would-be seceders that they will have to pay a heavy price to follow their conscience. That's usually the case, but I hope that more and more Episcopalians will awaken to the dire state of their denomination and separate from its apostasy, even if it should cost them all they possess. God is no man's debtor. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
The Apostle Paul once had to defend his integrity against charges of double talk from some people in Corinth. He vehemently repudiated the accusation, realizing that for anyone, but especially for a man who claimed to be an ambassador of the God of truth, it is a shameful thing to practice duplicity. He was reflecting the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ who commanded us, "Let your yea be yea and your nay, nay." In other words, speak the truth and eschew double talk. I wish the bishops of the Church of England shared this commitment to plain speaking and honesty. How's this for an exercise in duplicity? Listen to this statement from the bishops: "The Church's teaching on sexual ethics remains unchanged." That teaching is that sexual relations properly belong "within marriage exclusively." The bishops' statement goes on to say that marriage "is a creation ordinance, a gift of God in creation and a means of his grace. Marriage, defined as a faithful, committed, permanent and legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman, is central to the stability and health of human society." So far so good. This sounds like the bishops stand firmly for the biblical standard that excludes such relationships as cohabitation outside of marriage and homosexual partnerships. Nothing could be further from the truth. Out of one side of their mouths the bishops speak of marriage as a "faithful, committed, permanent and legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman," the only sphere for lawful sexual relations. But listen as they proceed to speak out of the other side of their mouths: "While the same standards apply to all, the Church did not want to exclude from its fellowship those lay people of gay or lesbian orientation who, in conscience, were unable to accept that a life of sexual abstinence was required of them and instead chose to enter into a faithful, committed relationship. ‘The House considers that lay people who have registered civil partnerships ought not to be asked to give assurances about the nature of their relationship before being admitted to baptism, confirmation and communion.'" You may recall the furor when Bill Clinton's regime established the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for homosexuals in the military. Well, that policy was the soul of perspicacity and honesty compared to the conflicting statements of the Anglican Bishops. Having hopefully lulled their conservative elements into a state of unsuspecting acceptance by their unambiguous statement on the exclusive sanctity of marriage they proceed to say that practicing homosexuals should not even be asked about the nature of their relationship and should be admitted to baptism, confirmation and the Lord's Table even if they are living in defiance of the very standard that the bishops described as the exclusive and divinely sanctioned sphere of sexual relations. Double talk like this is unworthy of any professed minister of Christ. It is utterly ungodly and those who indulge in it, no matter what their prestige among men-and the title "Bishop" or "Archbishop" is certainly prestigious-mark themselves as children of him whom the Lord Jesus Christ described as a liar and the father of lies. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
The FCC is currently considering new regulations that could have a dramatic, even fatal, influence on Christian radio stations across the country. What is being considered is a proposal to require every radio station to take programming advice from community advisory boards representative of the area's population. With regard to secular stations, many of which are vehicles to corrupt the morals of our youth with their violent rap music, there may well be a need for community voices to be heard. But a special case should be made for Christian radio stations. Why? Because we are facing a concerted effort by well organized radical groups to drive any overt Christian voice from the public square. In many, perhaps most cases, the proposal before the FCC would force Christian stations off the air. As World Net Daily reported, "Advocates of Christian programming say [that the proposal] would require Christian broadcasters to seek advice from non-Christians and even those opposed to the Christian message. Some radio stations fear organized groups of atheists, for instance, could demand representation on the new FCC-mandated advisory boards that would factor into licensing decisions." If the FCC were to implement this proposal it would be a gift to the enemies of the gospel. It would place the activists of organizations such as the ACLU and other liberal groups in the position of being able to dictate to a large extent what Christian radio stations may air. It could well allow them to censor just about anything, no matter how Biblical, from the airwaves. That has been the aim of the radical left for a long time. Just imagine if a Christian radio station were barred from telling what the Bible says about matters of doctrine or morality, just because a crowd of humanistic or theologically liberal activists organized against them. There are many professedly Christian radio stations that are hardly worthy of the name. With their rock music and worldly agenda they are no great asset to the cause of Christ. But to place the power to shut stations down in the hands of people who are sworn enemies of all gospel preaching is not right. Christian stations already have to face the most severe form of public evaluation-if they don't serve enough people in their communities satisfactorily they will not survive financially. Without money, they cannot survive. That's the way the FCC should leave matters. Let the public decide in the most obvious manner if a station serves its interests. Keep radical activists' hands off Christian radio stations. Do not try to force Christians to make the message of God's word acceptable to the antichristian thinking and philosophy of atheists and other Christ rejecters. At the moment the proposal I have been talking about is under consideration. It has not been adopted by the FCC-at least, as yet. Public comment on the issue was accepted until April 28 and many people and organizations took the opportunity to make their views known. We need to pray that the Lord will stop this proposal dead in its tracks, that radical activists will not be given a virtual veto power over Christian radio stations. To give them the kind of power envisaged in the proposal before the FCC would really be putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| MONDAY, MAY 19, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
We have all heard of such things as Coca Cola Lite. Well, I suppose you could call this "Separation Lite." James Packer has at last quit the Anglican Church of Canada, though he has not cut his ties with the worldwide Anglican Communion, headed by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not long ago, I reported on the troubles Packer and some other evangelicals were having with their Bishop, Michael Ingham. Ingham is pushing a fanatically radical, left-wing agenda under the guise of Christianity. He and his diocese, along with almost half the entire Anglican Church of Canada, are major supporters of same-sex marriages and other forms of deviancy that the Bible describes as moral abominations. When I last reported to you, Ingham was threatening to deprive Packer and his clerical friends of their license to minister as Anglican priests. Now they have taken the initiative and have defied Ingham. In February, St. John's Shaughnessy Anglican Church in Vancouver, of which James Packer has been a long term member, left the 640,000-member Anglican Church of Canada to join with 14 other congregations from across the nation to seek to operate under a different bishop. They have formed the Anglican Network in Canada, reputedly about 2000 strong, and despite being forbidden to do so by the Primate of the Anglican Church in Canada, Archbishop Fred Hiltz, have placed themselves under the Episcopal oversight of South American Archbishop Gregory Venables, in a new non-geographically-based form of Anglicanism. Dr. Packer rightly identified Ingham and his followers as heretics and spoke of the "poison of liberalism" that they dispensed. For his trouble, he has been condemned as a poor soul who interprets the Bible "literalistically." One compromising minister, Rev. Kevin Dixon, piously intones the usual compromisers' complaint: "I think it's very unfair when any new insight that departs from an accepted position is labelled ‘heretical.'" He called the Vancouver-area diocese's decision to bless same-sex relationships "a recognition of what's true in light of contemporary research in genetics and psychology." Packer, Dixon alleged, is adopting a "literalistic" reading of the Bible when he takes Paul's 2,000-year-old words as proof for all time that the Supreme Being condemns homosexuality. Then Dixon played the slavery card: people once used the Bible to justify slavery and were wrong; people now use the Bible to condemn homosexuality and are just as wrong. That's the argument. How anybody can make that argument with a straight face is more than I know. People did use the Bible to support slavery-indeed, some still do. The reality is that they misuse the Bible. The Bible nowhere tells us that those who refuse to condone slavery cannot be saved; it does tell us that those who indulge homosexuality cannot be saved (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Dixon knows this but still he trots out the hoary old argument from slavery. The truth is that he does not accept the authority of the Bible. He calls it a "nuanced document" that needs new interpretations-in other words, we have to deny what it says in favor what he and his fellow liberals say that it means. I am glad that at last the 81 year old Jim Packer has at last taken some stand on separation. It has been a long time in coming. As I say, it's separation lite. It's not much but it's better than nothing. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| FRIDAY, MAY 16, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
In Exeter University, they run a course on children's thinking in religious education. One of the questions that children have asked is profound: "What is a soul?" The "experts" at Exeter tell us that we should not really try to give them an answer. Karen Aylward, a course leader at the University, said "I would resist defining what it is. Instead, I would explore what they think it is and use their ideas as a starting point. I'd want to know why they've asked the question. Is it something they've seen on television, is it linked to a question at school, or are they curious about what happens to us after we die?" If the children's question is profound the academic's answer is profoundly disturbing. Kids ask a deep question about something that is of the utmost importance and they deserve an answer. Instead, we are told, we should explore what they think the soul is. It's the old error that we cannot and must not speak authoritatively on such matters. One person's feelings are as valid as another's. What the child thinks is more important than "telling" it the answer. Underlying this approach is the sad reality that in the West we have given the educational process over to a bunch of academics whose starting point is the blatant denial of the reality of the Bible as a the word of God and of the gospel of Christ as God's authoritative revelation to mankind. These academics have for the most part embraced multiculturalism -indeed, most universities would refuse to hire them if they did not embrace it-and so they relegate all answers to such a question as "What is a soul?" to the realm of unsupportable opinion, with one opinion or religious belief being as valid as the next. The result is that our kids are growing up without any instruction on the most vital matters that affect their immortal souls. It is a tragedy that we have entrusted our children to a mostly anti-Christian bunch in the educational system, people who know nothing about the needs of their souls and care even less. Most churches don't help much either. Religion has become a matter of feeling good here and now, or of changing the world's economy, or of getting involved in the "green" movement. Most churches have more to say and do about Earth Day than about the Day of the Lord and the destiny of souls that will live forever. If your child asks, "Mom, what is a soul?" you should start by telling him that he is a soul. Go to Genesis and show him how God created man and breathed into him the breath of life, thus making him a living soul. Show him that this living soul will live on after it has been separated from the body. Use the words of Christ in Mark 8:36 to show him the preciousness of the soul. Tell him the good news of how the Lord Jesus made "his soul"-His real self-an offering to God to save our souls. Impress on him the truth that souls will either be with Christ or without Him for all eternity. Let him hear the glorious message that every soul who trusts Christ as Saviour and Lord will be saved and be with Him forever. Your child may not grasp the truth of all this all at once but he deserves an honest answer to an honest question. So, no matter what the "experts" say, give it to him and look to the Lord to make it effective to the saving of his soul. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Bobby Fischer was arguably the greatest chess player who ever lived. American champion at fourteen and the world's youngest grandmaster at fifteen, he finally became world champion in 1972 when he destroyed the Russian grandmaster Boris Spassky in the Icelandic capital, Reykjavik. Fischer was not only a genius whose IQ was said to be far above Einstein's, he was a lonely, demented and very troubled soul who became more and more a recluse. Born an American Jew, he became virulently anti-American and anti-Semitic and after first being hailed as a hero, he became a pariah in his homeland. The U.S. government finally revoked his passport and he became even more vitriolic in his hatred of the U.S., even gloating in the 9/11 attacks. But though he had very few friends, the Icelandic government treated him royally, granting him full citizenship, despite vigorous protests from the State Department. Fischer's famous chess war with Spassky had put Reykjavik on the map and had brought in millions of tourist dollars-and still does. A soon to be made Hollywood film of the contest will bring even more money to the city. The Icelandic authorities would dearly like to have buried Fischer in some special grave that would have become a tourist attraction. But when he died, the reclusive chess genius played one last move: he arranged to have his body interred secretly in a grave at a ceremony which only his closest friends attended and that even the officiating minister knew nothing about until the time of burial. His nearest relatives-the ex-husband and children of his dead sister, Joan-knew nothing about it. Nor did a woman who claimed to have lived with him for a time and to have borne his daughter in 2001. These relatives are now lining up to claim a piece of the $1.5m that remain of Fischer's fortune. Under Icelandic law they may all have a claim, for Fischer died intestate, but he may have checkmated them as well, for unknown to any of them he married a Japanese chess grandmaster in 2003. So the scene is set for a battle for his fortune, with most of the claimants having no particular regard for him or his soul. I mention his soul. Bobby Fischer was a complicated genius who was probably insane. In his demented isolation he seemed at times to be looking for some spiritual reality. For example, according to press reports, in California he joined "an oddball fundamentalist sect." One thing is clear: whatever it was that Bobby Fischer was looking for, he never found it. His fame and greatness drove him even further into himself. He had few friends, few people he could trust and few who had any real care for his wellbeing. As I reread his story, I was saddened. He has gone and soon his name will be largely forgotten, except among chess aficionados. But where is he? He died at the age of 64. In his world, he made it big time. He was number one and had no equals. But what use was it all to him in life? And what use is it to him now? There's many a lesson here for us, the chief one being the truth in the question posed by the Lord Jesus Christ: "What shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
God's people are called to separation from false doctrine and evil practice. By false doctrine I mean serious departures from the essential truths of the Word of God. The Bible nowhere gives us a list of those essential doctrines and for very good reason. The battle against apostasy is one that must be fought in every generation. In that battle, Satan's devices are very subtle. The point of attack and the manner of pressing the attack vary from time to time. The fundamental issues remain the same but the manner of bringing them under attack constantly changes. Thus we need to remain alert and vigilant. Historically, the widest statement of Christian tolerance and inclusivism limited Christian fellowship to people and churches that retained the central truths of the gospel. These included, but were not limited to, the doctrines of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Substitutionary Atonement and Bodily Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Personality of the Holy Spirit, the Inspiration, Infallibility and Sole Authority of the Bible, Justification by Grace Alone through Faith Alone, and the Second Coming of Christ. The rejection or perversion of any of these was enough to demand separation. That's why the Reformers separated from Rome. They would not compromise the Biblical doctrines of the Bible as the sole arbiter and authority in matters of faith and practice; Christ's finished work on the Cross; and justification by faith alone and thus separated from Rome. Similarly, the Fundamentalists of the early 20th century separated from liberal Protestant denominations because they refused to accept the liberals' denial of Scripture as being in any sense Christian. Of course, separation was more than something negative. It was a positive separation unto Christ and His gospel and it was marked by a vital energy in serving Him. Thus the early Protestant churches and the original Fundamentalists gave themselves to the propagation of the gospel. They carried its light to every corner of their world. They also adorned the gospel they preached with holy living. In other words, they did not merely separate from dead and apostate churches, they also separated from the corrupt lifestyle of the world. The only peer pressure they acknowledged was that from others equally dedicated to Christ. Today all that is changing. Enter the concept of co-belligerence. Evangelicals sit down with Romanists, Cultists and other "people of faith," ignoring that they are all proponents of a false faith and are therefore enemies of Christ. The excuse is that we face a common enemy, humanism or postmodernism or some such thing. Thus, while we cannot agree theologically, we should fight side by side in the "cultural" war we must wage. "Culture" cannot be divorced from religious belief. Co-belligerents ignore the fact that the people and systems with whom they are making common cause are major parts of the problem; they are not part of the answer. Saving the culture at the cost of compromising the gospel should be anathema to a Bible believer. Co-belligerence makes common cause with Satan's forces. That is its fundamental error. You can never effectually oppose the assaults that Rome or the cults make on the gospel if you accept them as spiritual equals in the battle for truth and right. Co-belligerence is simply dressed up compromise. It's the Trojan Horse in which the enemies of the gospel gain entrance into our lives and churches with aim of destroying both. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
The Pope has come and gone. His six day visit to the United States last month garnered the expected press coverage and sycophantic obsequiousness we have come to expect whenever his white-robed figure condescends to make a stopover. President Bush lavishly welcomed his papal guest. Right wing radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, gushed about how moving the White House ceremony was. As he was about to play the Army choir singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic, Limbaugh said in hushed tones, "God in Washington." Now, he may have meant that with an overtly religious ceremony, God was being recognized in Washington despite all the efforts to ban religion, especially Christianity, from the public square. Or he may have been echoing the Roman Catholic view that the pope is the personal representative of God on earth-a man who actually takes the name that in Scripture is given solely to the First Person of the Trinity, the title "Holy Father," and who claims the office that is unique to the Holy Spirit, "The Vicar of Christ." I don't know what Rush Limbaugh had in mind; I simply report what I heard him say and I found it disgusting. It was interesting that after the White House welcome, Limbaugh's web site eulogized the pope for his "God bless America" statement-he was so happy that somebody came to say something nice about America. I can understand that feeling but what I can't understand is Limbaugh's total silence the next day when the pope used his visit to this country to berate and chastise America. The Vatican, with a history so sordid that hardly a government in the whole western world can compete with it for corruption, displays enormous gall in setting itself up at the moral conscience of the world. The pope met with victims of clergy abuse during his visit. He reportedly has decreed that such abuse will be no more. Some hope. Coincidentally, just as his visit ended a news report from Alaska said that you cannot find a town without some victims of Roman Catholic clergy abuse. That's not something confined to the remote areas of Alaska. It's a worldwide epidemic and no sweet talking by the pope will change it. It is the product of a system that defies the plain teaching of Scripture on the matter of sexual purity. Papally legislated celibacy is not the way to purity. Nor is accepting homosexuals into the priesthood. But back to the papal visit. President Bush was effusive and the pope was deceptive. Benedict said that he had come to preach the gospel. That was his claim. Now Benedict proved when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, that he is a brilliant theological scholar. About that there is no argument. But to claim that he preaches the gospel is ridiculous. What is Benedict's gospel? Read what he has written. Listen to what he has said. Do not take my word for it, take his own word. If you do, you will find that Benedict's idea of the gospel is the same old jumbled mixture of works and grace-which destroys grace. And more clearly than ever he is pushing the blasphemy of the Mass as a real sacrifice in which Christ is offered to expiate the sins of the living and the dead. None of this comes near to being the gospel. Yet many of America's most powerful media outlets and political leaders fawned over the pope. Anyone who dared to sound a note of caution or raise a voice of opposition was dismissed as a Catholic-baiting crank. America's reported 57 million Roman Catholics have a right to welcome their religious leader but that all contrary views should be repressed or despised is dangerous and wrong. Let America beware: where Rome comes in light and liberty go out. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| MONDAY, MAY 12, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
When you hear this piece, please don't write me to tell me that America is a Republic, not a democracy. Or if you are British, don't write me to tell me that the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy. In the sense that they are forms of government that are of the people, by the people for the people, they profess themselves democratic. I say all that to reference an email that has been distributed to many, including me, about the fragile nature of democratic government. It quotes Alexander Tyler, a history professor at Edinburgh University, Scotland, about the time of the adoption of the United States Constitution. Tyler was commenting on the demise of the democratic republic of Athens some 2000 years earlier. Here's what he wrote; A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence: 1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage. Such were the views of a Scottish professor of history. They are insightful and stand as a grave warning to the nations of the West. I suppose that where I would modify Tyler's view is that while I recognize the inherent weakness he describes, I see something deeper. Israel had a form of government that was vastly superior to any democracy, a genuine theocracy with the presence and power of God very clearly in evidence. From Israel's history we can see that when men hold the truth of God as something precious and live in submission to it, there is genuine liberty and plenty. When complacency and apathy set in, men lightly esteem divine truth and begin to live for self under the tyranny of fleshly lust. The result is always the same: wickedness leads to weakness, dependence and bondage. In the end it leads to destruction, for God has decreed, "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God" (Psalm 9:17). America is self-destructing by its godless self-indulgence. Time is running out and we urgently need to see a powerful work of God to call this nation back to Him and the gospel of His Son. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
