PLANNED PARENTHOOD of INDIANA - loss of funding?

Governor weighs signing abortion bill - Indianapolis Star
Legislation would take away $2 million of $3 million that Planned Parenthood receives
By Mary Beth Schneider and Heather Gillers - Apr. 28, 2011
A bill cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood of Indiana is headed to the governor's desk after the House approved it 66-32 on Wednesday.
 
House Bill 1210 would take away about $2 million of the $3 million Planned Parenthood receives annually in government funds and make Indiana the first state to prohibit the use of Medicaid at Planned Parenthood centers. Supporters of the bill say they do not want their tax dollars going to an organization that provides abortions.

"This is a really exciting day for unborn Hoosier children," said Sue Swayze, legislative director of Indiana Right to Life. "It's a moral decision on behalf of the state of Indiana, and it's the right thing to do."
The bill, which passed the Senate 35-13 last week, also shortens the cutoff date for abortions to 20 weeks. It also requires doctors to tell women seeking abortions that the procedure is linked to infertility and that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks or earlier. The author of the bill, Rep. Eric Turner, said the passage was a long time coming.

"I've been around here for 20 years and have longed for a significant pro-life bill, and today was the culmination of that," said Turner, R-Cicero. "I think pregnant ladies will have a better informed decision to make, and I think the net result will be less abortions in Indiana, and I'm pleased about that."
Gov. Mitch Daniels has not said whether he will sign the bill into law. But on a radio show earlier this year, he described his administration as "the most pro-life" in Indiana history.

If Daniels signs the bill into law, Planned Parenthood of Indiana said it would immediately seek an injunction to keep the state from enforcing it. The organization uses its government funding to provide services such as contraceptives, sexually transmitted disease tests and cancer screenings to 22,000 low-income Hoosiers.
"Cutting off access to birth control to Indiana's most vulnerable will mean more unintended pregnancies, more Medicaid-covered births and more abortions," said Betty Cockrum, president of Planned Parenthood of Indiana. She also said the bill will force doctors to give patients seeking abortions medically inaccurate information.

The state has the authority to cut off about two-thirds of the taxpayer money Planned Parenthood of Indiana receives. The group gets about $3 million a year in federal dollars, but only about $2 million is funneled through the state. The other $1 million of federal money goes directly to the Indiana Family Health Council, a nonprofit agency that has distributed and audited certain family-planning funds since 1976. The state has no authority to stop the flow of those funds.

Cutting off the $2 million could come at a high cost to the state. About $1.3 million of that is Medicaid family-planning money, which comes with a federal requirement that the state not pick and choose among providers. Federal officials declined to say what sanctions Indiana might face for doing so, but the Family and Social Services Administration has expressed concerns it would lose all $4 million of its Medicaid family-planning money. An attorney for the anti-abortion Alliance Defense Fund says past cases show that Indiana would not face penalties.

No government dollars fund abortions, which Planned Parenthood pays for with patient fees and private donations. The group provided 5,500 abortions in Indiana last year.
Bill opponents worried that cutting off funds would leave Hoosiers without access to reproductive health care.

The Indiana Family Health Council said that without Planned Parenthood, there would be no clinic where a woman could get free birth-control pills south of Monroe County and east of Dubois County.
Proponents of the bill said that they had found alternative services available near about every Planned Parenthood clinic in the state.

Seven Democrats voted with Republicans to approve the bill: Dave Cheatham, North Vernon; Chet Dobis, Merrillville; Terry Goodin, Austin; Sheila Klinker, Lafayette; Chuck Moseley, Portage; Steven Stemler, Jeffersonville; and Peggy Welch, Bloomington.

No Republican voted against the bill.

FACT or FICTION (click on image)

THE TRUTH ABOUT PLANNED PARENTHOOD

click on the above link

Also visit - http://www.afain.net/ - for more information



SCRIPTURE - And the continuous undermining of it ...

Throwing the Bible Under the Bus - Al Mohler

Giberson and Collins reveal their true understanding of biblical inspiration when they locate it, not in the authorship of the text at all, but in the modern act of reading the text.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

In his 1996 novel, In the Beauty of the Lilies, John Updike told of the Reverend Clarence Arthur Wilmot, the fictional pastor of New York’s Fourth Presbyterian Church, who stopped believing in God one day in 1910. On that day, the Rev. Wilmot “felt the last particles of his faith leave him,” Updike wrote.

Rev. Wilmot’s crisis of faith was rooted in his loss of confidence in the Bible as the revealed Word of God. The influence of liberal critics of the Bible had reached him even at seminary years before, and now he saw the Scriptures as just another human book. In Updike’s words, the Scriptures were “one more human volume, more curious and conglomerate than most, but the work of men–of Jews in dirty sheepskins, rotten-toothed desert tribesmen with eyes rolled heavenward, men like flies on flypaper caught fast in a historic time, among the myths and conceptions belonging to the childhood of mankind.”



Updike’s brilliant and accurate depiction of the liberal approach to the Bible remains shocking. The Higher Critics, as the liberal scholars were then known, did indeed see the authors of the Old Testament as “rotten-toothed desert tribesmen” who could not see beyond “myths and conceptions belonging to the childhood of mankind.”



Well, the Reverend Clarence Arthur Wilmot was fictional, but Dr. Karl W. Giberson is not. Giberson is not a pastor, but a professor at Eastern Nazarene College near Boston. He is also a scientist involved with the BioLogos Foundation, a group committed to the defense and promotion of theistic evolution.



Just recently, Professor Giberson wrote an article published at CNN’s Belief Blog. In the article, Giberson claims that Jesus would believe in evolution, and that the rest of us should accept evolution as well. In the process of making his argument, Giberson castigates those who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis for forcing the biblical text to be read as “a modern account of origins.” Instead, Giberson asserts, Genesis is “a story that began as an oral tradition for a wandering tribe of Jews thousands of years ago.”



Sound familiar? Giberson went on to argue: “While Genesis contains wonderful insights into the relationship between God and the creation, it simply does not contain scientific ideas about the origin of the universe, the age of the earth or the development of life.”



So, according to Professor Giberson, Genesis contains “wonderful insights,” but no authoritative revelation of how God made the universe. Evidently, he believes that the Bible is not making a claim to historical truth when it tells of the creation and function of Adam and Eve. “We now know that the human race began millions of years ago in Africa — not thousands of years ago in the Middle East, as the story in Genesis suggests,” Giberson insists.



In making his case, Giberson uses the old argument that God has given humanity two books of revelation — the Bible and the created order. This is one of Giberson’s most frequently offered arguments. It is a theologically disastrous argument in his hands, for he allows modern naturalistic science to silence the Bible, God’s written revelation. In another article published last year, Giberson said, “I am happy to concede that science does indeed trump religious truth about the natural world."

Later, he stated even more directly that “science does indeed trump revealed truth about the world.”

In other words, he throws the Bible under the bus. In language hauntingly reminiscent of Reverend Clarence Arthur Wilmot, Professor Giberson describes the human authors of the Old Testament as “ancient and uncomprehending scribes.”

In his new book, The Language of Science and Faith, written with Francis S. Collins, readers will find this strange paragraph:


Biblical interpretation falls short without an understanding of biblical inspiration, of course, as we do not suggest that the Bible is simply another book to be interpreted. But we do a great disservice to the concept and power of inspiration when we reduce it to mere factual accuracy, as though God’s role were nothing more than a divine fact checker, preventing the biblical authors from making mistakes. A dead and lifeless text, like the phone book, can be factually accurate. The inspiration of the Bible is dynamic and emerges through engagement with readers.

That paragraph is, quite simply, one of the most ridiculous statements concerning the Bible one might ever imagine. Who has ever argued that the divine inspiration of the Bible is reduced to “mere factual accuracy”? Giberson’s dismissive language about God as “nothing more than a divine fact checker” is sheer nonsense. Who has ever made such a proposal?

The conclusion of the paragraph is an embarrassing non sequitur. It is patently untrue that only a “dead and lifeless text, like a phone book” can be factually accurate. Giberson and Collins reveal their true understanding of biblical inspiration when they locate it, not in the authorship of the text at all, but in the modern act of reading the text.

As they make their argument for theistic evolution, Giberson and Collins embrace a form of Open Theism and argue, quite consistently with arguments common to BioLogos, against the historicity of Adam and Eve.

They end the book with their own version of “The Grand Narrative of Creation.” This is their climactic conclusion of the narrative:

Eventually, the most advanced of the life forms on the planet, human beings, become deeply religious. Throughout the history of our species belief in God or gods has been close to universal. Abstractions like right and wrong, the meaning of life, the where everything came from have become critically important questions. The religious impulse developed into one of the deepest aspects of our complicated understanding of ourselves.

They conclude: “And God saw that it was good.”

Here is their own rendering of what it looks like when the “Book of Nature” trumps the Bible. Just compare their “Grand Narrative of Creation” with Genesis.

Then again, Karl Giberson believes that the human authors of Genesis were “ancient and uncomprehending scribes” and that Genesis “began as an oral tradition for a wandering tribe of Jews thousands of years ago.”

That sounds strangely like John Updike’s description of “Jews in dirty sheepskins, rotten-toothed desert tribesmen” caught in “myths and conceptions belonging to the childhood of mankind.”

This is what is left, when the Bible is thrown under the bus.

________________________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.


Karl W. Giberson, “My Take: Jesus Would Believe in Evolution and So Should You,” CNN Belief Blog, Sunday, April 10, 2011.


R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “On Darwin and Darwinism: A Letter to Professor Giberson,” Wednesday, August 25, 2010.


R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “Science Trumps the Bible? — An Amazingly Candid (and Disastrous) Argument,” Wednesday, October 27, 2010.


Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions [InterVarsity Press, 2011].



The Cross and The Resurrection - Al Mohler

Of First Importance — The Cross and Resurrection at the Center

The cross and the empty tomb stand at the center of the Christian faith. Without these, there is no good news — no salvation.

Friday, April 22, 2011

The Christian faith is not a mere collection of doctrines — a bag of truths. Christianity is a comprehensive truth claim that encompasses every aspect of revealed doctrine, but is centered in the gospel of Jesus Christ. And, as the apostolic preaching makes clear, the gospel is the priority.

The Apostle Paul affirms this priority when he writes to the Christians in Corinth. In the opening verses of 1 Corinthians 15, Paul sets out his case:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
Paul points directly to the events of the cross and resurrection of Christ. He is not concerned with just any gospel, but with the only gospel that saves. This is “the gospel I preached to you,” Paul reminds the Corinthians. The same Paul who so forcefully warned the Galatians against accepting any false gospel reminds the church at Corinth that the very “gospel I preached to you” is the gospel “by which you are being saved.” Their stewardship of the gospel is underlined in Paul’s words, “if you hold fast to the word I preached to you.”

Paul’s statement of priority is a vital corrective for our confused times. Without hesitation, Paul writes with urgency about the truths that are “as of first importance.” All revealed truth is vital, invaluable, life-changing truth to which every disciple of Christ is fully accountable. But certain truths are of highest importance, and that is the language Paul uses without qualification.

And what is of first importance? “That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,” and “that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” The cross and the empty tomb stand at the center of the Christian faith. Without these, there is no good news — no salvation.

Paul gets right to the heart of the matter in setting out those truths that are “of first importance.” Following his example, we can do no less. These twin truths remain “as of first importance,” and no sermon is complete without the explicit affirmation of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So it was then, so it is now, and so it ever shall be until Christ claims his church.

As Paul reminded the Corinthians — and now instructs us — the gospel is at the center of our faith, and the cross and the empty tomb are at the center of the gospel. “So we preach, and so you believed,” Paul encourages us. [1 Cor. 15:11]

May the power of the cross and the victory of the empty tomb fill every pulpit, every pew, and every Christian heart — and may the Good News of the gospel be received with joy by sinners in need of a Savior.

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain. [1 Corinthians 15:56-58]

EARTH DAY

Earth Day 2011: Celebrating 40-plus years of Deception

Then God said, " Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth" - Genesis 1:26

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." - Genesis 1:28

Wow, what a plan that the Creator of all things had in the beginning! We, as humans, were the crown jewel of His creation. We were made in His image for His glory and according to His word we were meant to have dominion over the earth. We were to subdue it, be fruitful, multiply, and fill all of the earth. That plan was drastically altered when the devil was slithering through the garden and deceived our first parents. From that point on, our earth has never been and will never be the same. Glory to God for sending humanity His Son to save us! Jesus; who was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, was crucified on the cross for my sins and yours, and on the third day rose from the dead ... who now sits at the right hand of Our Father. It is He who is our hope ... NOT the reduction of carbon admissions.

But, leave it to a corrupt political system and a deceived society to utilize environmental stewardship for their own selfish gain and advancement. You must understand, that the "Powers-That-Be" could really care less about the environment. They are using the "Environmental Movement" as a vehicle to advance their globalist agenda, line their pockets and remove the obstacle of Biblical Christianity from the landscape. Take a step back shall we and let us look at the origins of Earth Day.

"Earth Day" did not start out as "Earth Day" ... it was conceived by U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson from Wisconsin as a National Environmental Teach-In. Wouldn't you know it, another "teach-in" during the late 1960s and early 1970s ... but I digress. Nelson and his cronies directed the participants to utilize "The Environmental Handbook" to aide in facilitating discussions and putting ideas into practice. Did you know that each stream and tree has its own guardian spirit? I didn't either until I threw out all of my common sense and logic and read from The Environmental Handbook. This type of thinking/worldview can be bucketed into what is called PANTHEISM. Pantheism is nothing more than a form of spiritual naturalism. Its underlying belief is that god and the material world are one and the same thing and that god is present in everything ... all is god and god is all - So, go strike up a conversation today with your willow tree and try to find salvation for your lost soul? What the handbook does throughout its many pages is demonize Christianity and hold it responsible for the miseries of the world. On page 20, they make the claim that Christians believe that it is God's will for us to exploit the planet - I don't recall anything written in Genesis 1 that directed humanity to exploit creation - do you? And on page 25, The Handbook goes as far as to blame Christians for the worsening ecological crisis ... And I thought that this movement was about saving the planet?

I will not be replacing my Bible any time soon for The Environmental Handbook, but those who embrace Eastern Religions and Fundamental Mormonism might. You can see for yourself if you look at page 331 in the handbook. It exhorts society to have a revolution of consciousness and enlightenment while waving the banner(s) of the - Gnostic's, Marxists, Taoists, Quakers, Indians, and Shamans. Turn back a couple of pages to 324 and you will find endorsements for polygamy and group marriage ... bottom line - replace Christianity!

The pity of it all is that Earth Day and the Environmental Movement have been embraced by the mainstream church. Can you believe it? The church has embraced a movement that set out to destroy and replace the very essence of what Christianity stood for in the world. Biblical churches exclaiming and teaching Christ crucified are being replaced with Emergent/Apostate churches chattering about missional awareness. The Lord told us in His word that there would be days like these: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside by fables - II Timothy 4:3-4.

No environmental movement, handbook, agency or government program can save this planet - only God can! We, as a civilization, will cease to exist here on planet earth. It is a matter of biblical fact and a matter of time. Don't get me wrong, we need to do everything that we can to preserve and protect what God has given to us, but that does not change the fact that we are all living on/in a sinful and fallen planet. To exalt birds, trees, plants, and the delta smelt above humanity goes against the design of creation. Take a second and think about something ... there are people on this earth that will do everything in their power to protect and preserve a moose, but will then turn around and make an appointment at the abortion clinic the next week ... how does that make any sense? How is that even justified? We are made to feel guilty about endangering a flock of geese, but we can rejoice in the murder of 50 million babies under the banner of freedom ... insanity? It just doesn't add up to me, but I am open to have anybody explain this line of thinking ... any takers?

On this Earth Day may we gaze upon the face of God. May we allow Him to expose our sins to us and may we fall on our faces crying out for mercy. We do have hope as a planet, as a society, as humanity - it is in the saving work of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone. Our hope is in Him and any preacher, pastor, book or movement that tells society otherwise is deceiving us.

AGENDA: Grinding America Down

WVBC ’11: Kick-Off Event

 Wednesday, April 20th @ 6:30 p.m.

 Harbour Shores Church - 8011 E. 216th St., Cicero, IN

Cost - FREE

In preparation for our first WVBC Keynote with Curtis Bowers, we are offering a free screening of his award winning

documentary … “AGENDA: Grinding America Down”.  We wanted to allow for the opportunity to view the film before he

arrived and presented his keynote address.  We hope that this FREE screening will challenge you and bring to light

some questions that you can address with him when he is with us live on May 5^th @ 6:30 p.m.  Please visit http://worldviewbootcamp.org for more information.  We look forward to seeing you at HSC on April 20^th at 6:30 pm and throughout the summer.

Watch the AGENDA trailer … http://agendadocumentary.com/

 Watch Curtis and his speech after winning Grand Prize at the 2010 San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8rZJhr8W5M

John MacArthur and Rob Bell

Rob Bell: a Brother to Embrace, or a Wolf to Avoid?

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

If Christopher Hitchens or Deepak Chopra penned a book that scoffed at the biblical teaching on hell, we would not be surprised. So why would anyone be shocked or confused when Rob Bell writes Love Wins? Has Bell shown any more commitment to gospel truth, or any more devotion to the principle of biblical authority than Hitchens or Chopra?

Is Rob Bell truly a Christian, or is he one of those dangerous deceivers Scripture warns us about repeatedly (Acts 20:29; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; Colossians 2:8; 2 Peter 2:1; etc.)?
It's a fair—and necessary—question. Christ’s famous warning about wolves in sheep’s clothing is given to us as an imperative: “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15-16). Our Lord clearly expects His true disciples to be able to spot spiritual imposters and wolves in sheep’s clothing—especially those who are purveyors of deadly false doctrines.

Rob Bell certainly fits that category. He relentlessly casts doubt on the authority and reliability of Scripture. He denies the Bible’s perspicuity, disavows its hard truths, and ridicules some of the most important features of the gospel.

Granted, Bell (who was raised in the evangelical movement and is an alumnus of Wheaton College) still insists on calling himself “evangelical.” He reiterated that claim recently in a March 14 interview with Lisa Miller, where he stated, “Do I think that I’m evangelical and orthodox to the bone? Yes.”

A careful examination of Bell’s teaching suggests, however, that his profession of faith is not credible. His claim that he is “evangelical and orthodox to the bone” is, to put it bluntly, a lie. Bell’s teaching gives no evidence of any real evangelical conviction. If “each tree is known by its own fruit” (Luke 6:44), we cannot blithely embrace Rob Bell as a “brother” just because he says he wants to be accepted as an evangelical.

If, as Jesus said, His sheep hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:27), then we ought to look with the utmost suspicion on anyone who doubts and denies as much of Jesus’ teaching as Rob Bell does, and yet claims to be a follower of Christ.

Scripture is crystal-clear about this: “If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing” (1 Timothy 6:3-4).

Historic evangelicalism has always affirmed the authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture, while declaring (as Jesus and the apostles did) that the only way of salvation for fallen humanity is through the atoning work of Christ, and the only instrument of justification is faith in Jesus Christ as He is revealed in the gospel.

Rob Bell believes none of those things. His skepticism about so many key biblical truths, his penchant for sowing doubt in his hearers, and his obvious contempt for the principles of divine justice as taught in Scripture all give evidence that he is precisely the kind of unbelieving false teacher Scripture warns us about.

Bell is an inveterate syncretist who loves to blend “progressive” and politically correct dogmas with eastern mysticism, humanistic jargon, and Christian terminology. His teaching is full of barren ideas borrowed directly from old liberalism, sometimes rephrased in postmodern jargon but still reeking of stale Socinianism.

What Bell is peddling is nothing like New Testament Christianity. It is a man-centered religion totally devoid of both clarity and biblical authority.

Given those facts, you might think any true evangelical would reject Bell and his teaching outright. But evidently many in the American evangelical movement think they are obliged simply to accept at face value Bell’s claim of orthodoxy. No less than Mart DeHaan, voice of Radio Bible Class, decried Bell’s critics, portraying them as the divisive ones for pointing out the unsoundness of Bell’s teaching. DeHaan wrote,
I’m left wondering… are we allowing love (and truth) to win now… by using threats of group pressure and blackballing of brothers like Rob, and those who openly or secretly stand with him? Is that really the best way to maintain a strong and healthy orthodoxy? [emphasis added]

The biblical answer to DeHaan’s question is clear and fairly simple: The best way to maintain a strong and healthy orthodoxy is to “[hold] fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching . . . to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers . . . who must be silenced” (Titus 1:9-11).

We have a duty not only to expose, refute, and silence Rob Bell’s errors, but also to urge people under his influence to run as fast and as far as they can from him, lest they be gathered into the eternal hell he denies. It won’t do to sit by idly while someone who denies the danger of hell mass-produces sons of hell (cf. Matthew 23:15).

In a series of posts this week, we will demonstrate from Rob Bell’s own published works that he has long been hostile to virtually every vital gospel truth; we will consider some of the questions he has raised about what the Bible has to say about hell; and we will compare and contrast what Bell is saying about hell with what Jesus said about it.

Buckle in and get ready to be challenged. These are admittedly some of the hardest truths in the New Testament, but there’s no reason anyone holding authentic evangelical convictions should find the subject confusing or controversial.

John MacArthur
Pastor-Teacher

David Barton: Deceiver or Deceived?

Adullam Films Update

by Chris Pinto

The anti-Republican website, Right Wing Watch recently featured an article on our newest film, “The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers” with the headline: “Bad News for Beck and Barton: the Founding Fathers Were Antichrists.”

The headline was based on the powerful information contained in the documentary, which reveals what the chief founders of the American Revolution actually believed about the Christian faith. To read the full article from Right Wing Watch, click here.

The Bible tells us that we are saved by God’s grace through faith, not of works lest any man should boast. As such, our documentary is not a diatribe into the works or deeds of the founders, as if to accuse them of some immoral acts. Instead, it is an examination of their FAITH. But what was their faith? What did these men actually believe about God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ? Incredibly, men like Jefferson, Adams and others wrote extensively about Christian doctrine and the teachings of Scripture. But what most Bible believers are unaware of is that these men were radically anti-Christ. Unfortunately, many professing Christians seem to be abandoning the Gospel in favor of “conservative values” which allow for “all faiths” to be included that are willing to take a stand against abortion, gay marriage, and the general wave of liberalism in the country today. We have come to believe that this is a snare prepared by the devil to diminish the power of preaching the cross of Christ, and render ineffective the Church in our country.

Sadly, the devil’s tactic seems to be working, and the key instrument of the deception is the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution. Conservatives present these men as “angels of light” who are exalted more highly than any apostles or prophets in our country today, quoting their great swelling words as if they were equal to the record of Scripture. What is devastating and diabolical, is that the glow of “faith” said to emanate from these oracles is quite the opposite of what is presented in many churches. In short, their own letters prove that many of the founders hated Biblical Christianity and wanted to see the Gospel destroyed. The letters in question are beyond dispute and can be found among many collections of the Founders writings, and in the Library of Congress. They were not merely deists or agnostics or humanists (which we have come to believe are very deceptive terms) but were antichrists according to the Word of the Living God.

We have further come to believe that Christians who prefer to define these men in worldly terms (calling them “deists” or “theistic rationalists” etc.,) do no service to the Church or to the unbelieving world, since political correctness in matters of spiritual importance tends to lull the hearers into a place of uncertainty; whereas the holy scriptures give no uncertain sound as to how those who reject Christ are to be regarded.

“Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)

The importance of this is seen in the reaction of those (even among believers) who become especially troubled at hearing that the Founders were “antichrists.” The initial thought is that such a term is too extreme. “Well, I wouldn’t necessarily say that they were anti-Christ,” is a common reply. “They just held to certain humanist ideas, and did not believe in the divinity of Christ.” Yes, but that is the spirit of antichrist. The name “Christ” is not merely the last name of the man Jesus, as if we might call him Jesus Jones or Jesus Johnson. The name “Christ” embodies the whole doctrine of who the promised Messiah is, according to the scriptures set forth by Moses and the prophets, with the witness of the apostles. This is why John in his second epistle to the Church tells us that one is “a deceiver and an antichrist” who “abides not in the doctrine of Christ.” (2 John 7, 9)

Furthermore, we also consider how Jesus said:“And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not … He that rejecteth me, and receivethnot my words, hath one that judgeth him: the wordthat I have spoken, the same shall judge him in thelast day.” (John 12:47-48)

When the Lord returns, He comes with a two-edged sword from His mouth, by which He smites the nations (Revelation 19:15). That sword from His mouth is the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17). In other words, when the Lord returns, He will judge the nations according to His Word – not according to secular terminology. Not according to the wisdom of man, or of the rulers of this age which comes to nothing (1 Corinthians 2:6). That is the wisdom of the Founding Fathers – it will ultimately come to nothing. One might just as soon invest in Enron stock as in the philosophies of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Washington. You will find prosperity for a while, but in the end you will be bankrupt, and only once it’s too late, realize that you have been lied to. This is the place our country is reaching even today, as the wicked leaven of “universalism” sown by the Founders through the U.S. Constitution seems to produce more tares than wheat in the fields of the American harvest.

It is our responsibility as believers to obey the Lord, to declare the wisdom of God, and teach men to observe all things that Jesus has commanded (Matthew 28:20), that through the words of God, men might know the truth.“For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.” (Malachi 2:7)  If we accept that all who believe Christ are counted as “priests” under the New Covenant (1 Peter 2:9), then it is our responsibility to communicate the words that God has given us; to set forth the wisdom of God, not of man.“… we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth …” (1 Corinthians 2:13)

Our pastors tell us, “Well, the Founders spoke of God as Divine Providence, and they believed that God was active in the affairs of men. They were just influenced by the Enlightenment, and could not see Jesus as the Divine Son.” This is often offered as an apologetic to excuse their unbelief, and gives Christians (not to mention unbelievers) the false hope that perhaps these men went to heaven in spite of their rejection of the Gospel.


Again, such ambiguity is unknown in the New Testament: “Know ye not that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived …” (1 Cor. 6:9) “… when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power …” (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9) For those who have not seen “The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers,” I will present here some of the quotes that we show in the film. Here are some examples of things said by the key founders. First, from Thomas Paine, the man who is said to have inspired the Declaration of Independence:

“Whenever we read the obscene stories, voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortous executions, the unrelenting vindictivenes, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we called it the word of a Demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind, and, for my part, I sincerly detest it …” (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, part first, 1852 edition, p. 19)

Next, from Thomas Jefferson, author if the Declaration of Independence:

“… where did we get the ten commandments? The book indeed gives them to us verbatim, but where did it get them? For itself tells us they were written by the finger of God on tables of stone, which were destroyed by Moses … But the whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful, that it seems vain to attempt minute inquiry into it … we have a right to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine …” (Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814)

Concerning the teachings of Jesus Christ, Jefferson wrote:
“Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Him by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture … I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross … and leave the latter to the
stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the … first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus.” (Jefferson, letter to W. Short, April 13, 1820)

When Jefferson makes reference to separating “the gold from the dross,” he is referring to his so called Jefferson Bible, in which he literally cut out all references to the supernatural: the virgin birth, the miracles of Christ, His resurrection, etc. Jefferson elsewhere called the Book of Revelation “the ravings of a maniac.”

Then we have this testimony from Benjamin Franklin, who had this to say just a short time before his death. In fact, it is shown in this letter to Ezra Stiles (the President of Yale College at the time) that Franklin himself expected to die in the near future. Here is what he said:

“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho' it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.” (Benjamin Franklin Letter, to Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790)

Then we have this testimony from John Adams, who is probably most often seen as a Founder who believed in Christianity. But as we show in “Hidden Faith,” Adams’ faith in Christianity was like the faith of the Pharisees in Abraham and Moses. If they had really believed Abraham and Moses, they would have also believed Jesus. Likewise, if Adams really believed in the “Christian principles” he is so often quoted for, he would never have written these words to Thomas Jefferson:

“The Europeans are all deeply tainted with prejudices, both ecclesiastical and temporal, which they can never get rid of. They are all infected with … creeds, and confessions of faith. They all believe that great Principle (God) which has produced this boundless universe … came down to this little ball (the earth), to be spit upon by Jews. And until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.” (John Adams, Letter toThomas Jefferson, January 22, 1825, emphasis added)

Finally, we come to George Washington, who was certainly the most moderate of the Revolutionaries, and who was careful not to offend the religious beliefs of anyone. As a Freemason, Washington defined “God” with the traditional vaguery Masonry is known for, employing the name “Great Architect of the Universe” in his letters.

“I sincerely pray that the Great Architect of theUniverse may bless you and receive you hereafter into his immortal Temple.” (George Washington, Letter to the Massachusetts Grand Lodge, December 27, 1792)

What is interesting is that David Barton, who defends the idea of Washington as a Christian, says in his own writings that the god of Masonry is not the God of the Bible. Barton writes that in Christianity: “Only one God is worshipped – and that God is not the universalist deistic god that Masonry denotes as the ‘Great Architect of the Universe’ (G.A.O.T.U.)” (David Barton, The Question of Freemasonry and the Founding Fathers, p. 20)

Barton, while failing to acknowledge it, is inadvertently admitting that the “god” of George Washington was not at all the God of the Christian faith. Perhaps the most convicting testimonies come from Washington’s own pastors who ministered to him for more than 20 years. One of them (Bishop William White) said there was no evidence that Washington believed the Gospel; the other (Dr. Ashbel Green) said that Washington did not believe the Jewish-Christian revelation, while the opinion of the third, Dr. James Abercrombie was recorded by Dr. Bird Wilson this way:

“Long after Washington’s death, in reply to Dr.Wilson, who had interrogated him as to his illustrious auditor’s religious views, Dr. Abercrombie’s brief but emphatic answer was: ‘Sir, Washington was a Deist.’” (Six Historic Americans, by John E. Remsburg)

Forsaking GOD for the sake of a flag ....

CONFRONTING THE PATRIOTIC FAITH

By Christian J. Pinto - http://www.adullamfilms.com/

"For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither

hid, that shall not be known." (Luke 12:2)

Perhaps more dangerous than yoga, psychology, or any of the new age doctrines that have crept into modern churches, is the ongoing love affair that some believers have with patriotic Christianity. Many Christian leaders, who can easily spot the lies of the New Age movement, abandon all discernment when it comes to the history of America and the idea that this country was founded as a Christian nation. Yes, they are well able to recognize the kundalini serpent crawling up the spine of believers at the gym, but can't seem to figure out that the Washington monument is a pagan phallic symbol that glorifies a demonic entity. They are unable to discern that just because certain Freemasons wrote "Glory to God" on it does not make it a Christian icon.

Christians who live in America understand that we are soldiers of Christ, who are strangers and pilgrims upon the earth, and who happen to be stationed in a place called America. American Christians, on the other hand, believe that the United States represents the kingdom of God on earth, and their purpose is to promote American values and the revolutionary principles of democracy, rather than the message of life eternal. They will politely refrain from being too forward about such sensitive issues as heaven and hell; but will be bold to speak about freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. "I don't want to intrude my beliefs on yours," they say, "unless it comes to my Constitutional rights!" If their zeal for the Lord Jesus were equal to their love for America, we can only wonder what great things might be done for the sake of the truth. As believers living in America, we must ask: is the core message of Americanism, even at its best, really that of the Bible?


Church and State

If one studies these elite societies at any length, he will quickly realize that their religious views cannot be separated from their political machinations. Their insistence on a separation of church and state does not mean they want to separate religion from government. It means they want to separate The Church (i.e. Christianity) from the state. This is why they demand that all Christian icons (the cross, ten commandments, etc.) be removed from government buildings, seals, etc. Yet the pagan icons, such as the Statue of Liberty, the Eye of Horus, the Washington Monument, along with countless other celebrations of the occult religions are never threatened. Yes, the Ten Commandments must be taken away from in front of the courthouse, but the statue of the blindfolded Themis, the Greek goddess of justice, can remain unfettered. The message is clear: the devils can stay, but God must go.



The Founding Fathers of America

Many Christians are repeatedly told by their pastors, teachers and church leaders that America was founded as a Christian nation. This assertion would not be so bad if it were confined to the arrival of the Puritans at Plymouth, and the early development of the new world. If that were the case, it would be an accurate statement in this writer's opinion. It is very clear that the Puritan/Pilgrims who built the towns, cities and roads for the original 13 colonies did so as Bible believers who were establishing Christian communities.



The problem arises when one marks the foundation of our country at the American Revolution and the establishment of the United States. It is at this point where all bible believing Christians should be very wary, since the working of occult societies during this era was at an unprecedented height in history. Some historians even argue that you simply cannot understand the history of the world for the past few hundred years if you do not take these societies into account. Their members have been the planners, leaders, and engineers of a global agenda, one that they do not readily share with the rest of the world. More importantly, they often use "religion" as an instrument to manipulate the masses, their belief being that the end justifies the means.

For Christians, our concern should be not for their conspiracy to take over the world, which is simply the fulfillment of God's prophecies and proof that His Word is true. Rather, our concern must be their corruption of the faith of Christ from within our ranks. In the New Testament, Jude gives us this important exhortation:


"… it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our
Lord Jesus Christ." (Jude 3-4)

Notice that Jude is warning us that we must "contend" (i.e. fight) for the true faith because "certain men" whom he calls "ungodly" have crept into the church. Such warnings are found throughout the New Testament. Jesus warned of "ravening wolves" in "sheep's clothing" (Matthew 7:15), while Paul warned of "grievous wolves" who would not spare the flock (Acts 20:29), while Peter warned that such men would bring in "damnable heresies" (2 Peter 2:1) and would be denying the Lord, just as Jude confirms.

Sadly, all of the above warnings can be found among the chief Founders of the American Revolution, which will be shown in the following articles. The question is, are the Founders men who have crept into the church? The answer can only be "yes." Not only were these men involved in churches in their lifetimes, but even two centuries later, their names and philosophies are sounded regularly among the congregations of the Lord. Their influence is among us, as surely as if they lived and breathed at this very hour.

Consider this: when our Puritan fathers founded Harvard University in 1636, they set forth the motto: Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae which means "Truth for Christ and the Church." That was the original focus of Harvard and they had no problem stating it openly. Nearly four hundred years later, the motto has been shortened to: Veritas. Simply the word for "Truth." As with many things, "Christ and the Church" have been thrust out. But this is no accident, and is not a betrayal of the "original intent" of the Revolutionaries. On the contrary, it is exactly what they wanted. Yes, the Pilgrims would be turning in their graves, but they are separated from Jefferson, Adams and Franklin by more than a hundred years.

Taking America Back: but back to what?
The evidence will show that the troubles for Christianity in America did not begin when they took prayer out of schools in the 1960's. It began with the American Revolution. This is especially bad news for those who think we need to "get back to the founding fathers." George Washington and Thomas Jefferson do not represent the solution -- rather, they were the very beginning of the problem. But to understand this, you must first understand them.
 The Bible vs. Secular Terminology

It may be that the greatest single hindrance to discerning the truth about these men is that they are often defined – not by a Biblical standard – but by secular thinking. It is one thing for teachers and professors in universities to have such a view, but quite another for pastors and ministers in the church. Our first responsibility is to the Word of God and the preaching of the Gospel, not to promote secular philosophies and ideas.

It is often given out that certain founders were "deists" or "theists" or some other such thing. Unfortunately, such worldly terms are very misleading and only succeed in masking the truth. It reminds me of an interview I heard with a woman who said she represented a "Pregnancy Alternative Clinic," which was really an "Abortion Clinic." The words pregnancy alternative helped to soften the blow of what she was really promoting. So it is with those who refer to the founders as "non-religious" or "free-thinkers" etc. It does not represent the Biblical point of view, which is of great concern since Jesus said:

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48)

Ultimately, all men will be judged according to the Word of God; so our service toward mankind is to inform them of how their condition is viewed in the sight of God. Imagine a doctor telling a man that he has some "respiratory irregularity," when the truth is that he has lung cancer! Does the doctor do a service to a dying man by misleading him?

I am reminded of a popular TV show, "The Biggest Loser," about overweight people who are brought to a work out camp for weight loss. At some point, these people are made to sit down with a doctor, who often informs them that if they do not lose the necessary weight, they will die in a short time. Often, those who are given such news weep, and are shocked to hear the report. Nevertheless, it is that very shock that compels them to do something about it. A patient needs to know the dire nature of his condition so that he will be compelled to act. Where spiritual matters are concerned, we must seek the Great Physician for an examination of how the beliefs of deists and freethinkers should be viewed.

Judge Not?

Whenever discussions come up about the faith of others, some will often object and cry out that it is wrong to question. "If someone claims to believe God, or says they have faith in Christianity, we ought to take them at their word," they say. But according to the Bible, it is in no way wrong to examine the faith of those who claim to be Christians. If anything, the fault is in failing to exercise discernment. We are not expected to politely accept a confession, especially if we are given cause to doubt it. On the contrary, we are told:

"Beware of false prophets …" (Matthew 7:15)
"Take heed that no man deceive you …" (Matthew 24:4)
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God …" (1 John 4:1)

In the articles that follow, we will examine some of the beliefs of the key founding fathers, whose own words prove that these men were not Christians and had no intention of founding a Christian country. As you read the words of these men, consider how their so-called "faith" would be viewed in the sight of God. How does the Word of Life judge their testimonies? Remember this verse:

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."
(1 John 2:22)

AGENDA 21 (Sustainable Development) - "You Need to Understand This ..."

Agenda 21 In One Easy Lesson

Tom DeWeese

Awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is racing across the nation as citizens in community after community are learning what their city planners are actually up to. As awareness grows, I am receiving more and more calls for tools to help activists fight back. Many complain that elected officials just won't read detailed reports or watch long videos. "Can you give us something that is quick, and easy to read that we can hand out," I'm asked.

So here it is. A one page, quick description of Agenda 21 that fits on one page. I've also included for the back side of your hand out a list of quotes for the perpetrators of Agenda 21 that should back up my brief descriptions.



A word of caution, use this as a started kit, but do not allow it to be your only knowledge of this very complex subject. To kill it you have to know the facts. Research, know your details; discover the NGO players in your community; identify who is victimized by the policies and recruit them to your fight; and then kill Agenda 21. That's how it must be done. The information below is only your first step. Happy hunting.



What is Sustainable Development?

According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.



Social Equity (Social Justice)

Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people "to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment." Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social justice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.



Economic Prosperity

Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government's power of Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies.



Local Sustainable Development policies

Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, "Going Green," Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.



Who is behind it?

ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide "local" community plans, software, training, etc. Addition groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.



Where did it originate?

The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN's Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21.



What gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority?

More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President's Council on Sustainable Development in order to "harmonize" US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort "reinvent" government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.



Revealing Quotes From the Planners

"Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… " Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Emphases – DR



Urgent to implement – but we don't know what it is!

"The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform – a program that has yet to be fully defined." The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.



"No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis." The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.



Agenda 21 and Private Property

"Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social justice." From the report from the 1976 UN's Habitat I Conference.



"Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…" Report from the President's Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.



"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable." Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN's Earth Summit, 1992.



Reinvention of Government

"We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals." Report from the President's Council on Sustainable Development



"Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective." Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project



"We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land." Dave Foreman, Earth First.



What is not sustainable?

Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment." UN's Biodiversity Assessment Report.



Hide Agenda 21's UN roots from the people

"Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear 'one-world government' and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined 'the conspiracy' by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth." J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development.

OTHER HELPFUL LINK(S)
http://www.freedom21.org/

http://truthandcons.blogspot.com/

http://biggovernment.com/?s=SUSTAINABLE+DEVELOPMENT