[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God! Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: Let me ask all of you some questions: Source: www.ChristianPatriot.com URL Source: [None] Published: Apr 22, 2015 Author: Pastor Bob Celeste ACP Post Date: 2015-04-22 14:58:34 by BobCeleste Keywords: ACP Views: 13416 Comments: 102 Let me ask all of you some questions: 1. Do you think today’s preachers are smarter, as smart or not as Scripturally smart as Preachers in the 1770's? 2. Do you think today’s politicians are smarter, as smart, or not as smart Constitutionally as politicians in the 1770's and the first days of our Republic? 3. If Revolution were legal, acceptable and encourage by both the politicians of the colonies and the preachers of the colonies in the 1770's, why is it unacceptable, and discouraged by both the preachers and the politicians today? 4. If Romans chapter 13 was not a problem to Christians revolting against the crown in the 1770's why is it today? Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: All (#0) Shortly I am going to do an in-depth study of Romans 13:1-7. Romans 13:1-7 is what the leftist preachers, the leftist politicians, newspapers and preachers who are to lazy to do a real study claim forces Christians to accept the likes of Roosevelt, Clinton, Carter, Obama and the infamous Bush family. these questions are a precursor to the thought. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-04-22   15:01:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: redleghunter, AKA Stoner (#0) ping BobCeleste  posted on  2015-04-22   15:03:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: BobCeleste (#1) Define smarter. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-04-22   15:04:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: BobCeleste (#0) Do you think today’s preachers are smarter, as smart or not as Scripturally smart as Preachers in the 1770's? No, because Protestant preachers are accursed heretics and thus inherintly stupid. Pericles  posted on  2015-04-22   15:05:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: BobCeleste (#0) 1. Do you think today’s preachers are smarter, as smart or not as Scripturally smart as Preachers in the 1770's? Some are some are not. What's the difference? Back then pastors were not bombarded with leftist agendas and legalization of murder and immorality. The challenge of the 'today' pastor facing these challenges in abundance in their own churches puts them on the defensive often. That's how I see it. 2. Do you think today’s politicians are smarter, as smart, or not as smart Constitutionally as politicians in the 1770's and the first days of our Republic? No comparison hands down. The politicians in colonial America staked their philosophy with their families, lives and properties. They knew what they wanted and fought for it. Today they are ruled by special interests left and right. 3. If Revolution were legal, acceptable and encourage by both the politicians of the colonies and the preachers of the colonies in the 1770's, why is it unacceptable, and discouraged by both the preachers and the politicians today? Our founders used every measure to entreat the British crown and parliament as to their greivances. For preachers today the question is 'have we gone the extra 50 miles the founders did to address our grievances?' Preachers today also saw a civil colonial government rise up against the crown. Not churches. We had 13 duly elected legislatures which rebelled against the crown. Not a group of Presbetarian preachers rebelling against the crown. 4. If Romans chapter 13 was not a problem to Christians revolting against the crown in the 1770's why is it today? In the 1770s it was not churches which rebelled against the crown but properly elected colonial governments. Once their duly elected governments separated from the crown, Christians defended their homes. Big difference. The American Revolution was not a Christian insurrection. There were Christians under the crown and Christians who fought with the colonial army/navy/militia. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3) redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-22   15:32:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: BobCeleste (#1) Shortly I am going to do an in-depth study of Romans 13:1-7. Romans 13:1-7 is what the leftist preachers, the leftist politicians, newspapers and preachers who are to lazy to do a real study claim forces Christians to accept the likes of Roosevelt, Clinton, Carter, Obama and the infamous Bush family. these questions are a precursor to the thought. The key piece to Romans 13:1-7 is earthly government enforcing laws for the good against evil. When government sanctions evil against God's law, then the resistence seen in Daniel chapter 3 is expected of the believer. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego put their faith in God to deliver them...And He did. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3) redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-22   15:34:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: Pericles, liberator (#4) No, because Protestant preachers are accursed heretics and thus inherintly stupid. Forret Gump has a few one liners for you... Oh you might want to use spell check for your post above. It's "inherently." Usually I give a pass on errors like that, but since you were asserting Protestants are stupid, I just thought I'd mention it. I know you were using a Pruteestent speele zchyker. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3) redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-22   15:38:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: BobCeleste (#0) #1 -- I have no idea... #2 -- The Constitution wasn't penned until the late 1780s, so during the 1770s everybody was Constitutionally clueless. #3 -- The Revolution only became "legal" and acceptable after our Founding Fathers won... Prior to that, they were considered to be treasonous outlaws. #4 -- Many of our Founding Fathers were actually Deists and not overly "Christian" as we understand today. Perhaps the God-fearing Christians tended more to be the Tories who were "conservative" and loyal to the Crown. And our Founding Fathers were at best Deists... or perhaps godless merchants who despised paying taxes. Willie Green  posted on  2015-04-22   15:45:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: redleghunter (#7) I know you were using a Pruteestent speele zchyker. Isn't he Greek Orthodox? “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€� CZ82  posted on  2015-04-22   15:48:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: redleghunter (#6) The key piece to Romans 13:1-7 is earthly government enforcing laws for the good against evil. When government sanctions evil against God's law, then the resistance seen in Daniel chapter 3 is expected of the believer. Very good, very good indeed. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-04-22   17:03:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: Willie Green (#8) #4 -- Many of our Founding Fathers were actually Deists and not overly "Christian" as we understand today. Perhaps the God-fearing Christians tended more to be the Tories who were "conservative" and loyal to the Crown. And our Founding Fathers were at best Deists... or perhaps godless merchants who despised paying taxes. You started out pretty good, but your number four is pure bull, never ever print, as fact, what you learned in the public indoctrination centers called schools. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-04-22   17:05:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: BobCeleste (#0) 2. Do you think today’s politicians are smarter, as smart, or not as smart Constitutionally as politicians in the 1770's and the first days of our Republic? In the 1770's the Constitution did not exist. It was ratified in 1789. With regard to the system of government intended by the Founders and Framers of that era, the Founders and Framers were a great deal more observant of what some may now refer to as original intent. The centuries of politicians that followed have undermined, hollowed out, and interpreted much of the original intent into extinction. Assuming the Framers intended to create a Constitution which would prevent an all-powerful Federal government, in a perverse way, I guess the politicians that followed proved they were smarter and/or more devious and unscrupulous and corrupt than the Framers. The Hamiltonians have prevailed. 3. If Revolution were legal, acceptable and encourage[d] by both the politicians of the colonies and the preachers of the colonies in the 1770's, why is it unacceptable, and discouraged by both the preachers and the politicians today? In the 1770's, the "right" to revolution was recognized as such by those who desired to overthrow existing power and seize that power for themselves. Such "right" was not recognized in the 1770's by those who were in power. Such right is not recognized by those in power today. Those in power call it treason. Had the Founders lost the Revolutionary War, they would be in the history books as traitors who were hanged for their great crime. Lincoln was all for the right of revolution (as a congressman) until he was against it (as President). Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. I, pp. 438-439, Speech in United States House of Representatives: The War with Mexico. [emphasis as in original] Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,—a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory (sic) as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones. 4. If Romans chapter 13 was not a problem to Christians revolting against the crown in the 1770's why is it today? The Bible and all else is useful when it supports what someone wants, or if they can bend it or misrepresent it to support what they want, or oppose what they do not want. nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-22   19:03:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: BobCeleste (#0) 2. Do you think today’s politicians are smarter, as smart, or not as smart Constitutionally as politicians in the 1770's and the first days of our Republic? Politicians have had a facility to stand the Constitution on its head when it suited their purposes. It does not necessarily indicate whether they were smart or not. What politicians say, or do, does not necessarily indicate what they believe to be correct. They frequently say or do what is politically expedient. Here is a progression of interpretation of State Sovereignty. - - - - - Articles II and III of the Articles of Confederation provided, II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. - - - - - Article VII of the Constitution provided, The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same. - - - - - The 10th Amendment provided: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. - - - - - And some interesting interpretations from Lincoln to a European to Reagan. Who is smartest? I should think Reagan was the most accurate. What is the particular sacredness of a State? I speak not of that position which is given to a State in and by the Constitution of the United States, for that all of us agree to—we abide by; but that position assumed, that a State can carry with it out of the Union that which it holds in sacredness by virtue of its connection with the Union. I am speaking of that assumed right of a State, as a primary principle, that the Constitution should rule all that is less than itself, and ruin all that is bigger than itself. But, I ask, wherein does consist that right? If a State, in one instance, and a county in another, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in the number of people, wherein is that State any better than the county? - - - - - The States have their status IN the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States. - - - - - What is a confederation of states? By a confederacy, we mean a group of sovereign states which come together of their own free will and, in virtue of their sovereignty, create a collective entity. In doing so, they assign selective sovereign rights to the national body that will allow it to safeguard the existence of the joint union. This theoretical definition does not apply in practice, at least not without some alterations, to any existing confederation of states in the world today. It applies the least to the American Union of States. Most of these individual states never possessed any sovereignty whatsoever. They were gradually brought into the framework of the union as a whole. Therefore. the various states of the American Union constitute, in most instances smaller or larger territories that were formed for technical administrative reasons and their borders were frequently drawn with a ruler. These states never possessed any previous sovereignty of their own because that would have been impossible. These states did not come together to create the Union, but it was the Union that created these so-called states. The extensive rights of independence that were relinquished, or rather rights that were granted, to the different territories are in harmony with the whole character of this confederation of states and with the vastness of its area and overall size which is almost as large as a continent. So, in referring to the states of the American Union, one cannot speak of their state soverignty, but only of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, which we could more accurately designate as privileges. - - - - - All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government. - - - - - nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-22   19:22:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: BobCeleste (#0) 4. If Romans chapter 13 was not a problem to Christians revolting against the crown in the 1770's why is it today? You won't get any straight answers to this one. Apparently, it was fine for the Founders to become traitorous rebels and depose the rule of their lawful king but it is unthinkable to dispose of some puny temporary mediocrity like the (generally loathsome) presidents of the last half-century. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-04-22   19:53:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: BobCeleste, tpaine (#11) You started out pretty good, but your number four is pure bull, never ever print, as fact, what you learned in the public indoctrination centers called schools. Wikipedia excerpt: Deism in the United States In the United States, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of religious freedom, expressed in Thomas Jefferson's letters and included in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. American Founding Fathers, or Framers of the Constitution, who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence. Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen,[44] and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout the United States and Europe). A major contributor was Elihu Palmer (1764–1806), who wrote the "Bible" of American deism in his Principles of Nature (1801) and attempted to organize deism by forming the "Deistical Society of New York" and other deistic societies from Maine to Georgia.[45] In the United States there is controversy over whether the Founding Fathers were Christians, deists, or something in between.[46][47] Particularly heated is the debate over the beliefs of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington.[48][49][50] Benjamin Franklin wrote in his autobiography, "Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist. My arguments perverted some others, particularly Collins and Ralph; but each of them having afterwards wrong'd me greatly without the least compunction, and recollecting Keith's conduct towards me (who was another freethinker) and my own towards Vernon and Miss Read, which at times gave me great trouble, I began to suspect that this doctrine, tho' it might be true, was not very useful."[51][52] Franklin also wrote that "the Deity sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events which would otherwise have been produc'd in the Course of Nature, or by the Free Agency of Man.[53] He later stated, in the Constitutional Convention, that "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men."[54] For his part, Thomas Jefferson is perhaps one of the Founding Fathers with the most outspoken of Deist tendencies, though he is not known to have called himself a deist, generally referring to himself as a Unitarian. In particular, his treatment of the Biblical gospels which he titled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, but which subsequently became more commonly known as the Jefferson Bible, exhibits a strong deist tendency of stripping away all supernatural and dogmatic references from the Christ story. However, Frazer, following the lead of Sydney Ahlstrom, characterizes Jefferson as not a Deist but a "theistic rationalist", because Jefferson believed in God's continuing activity in human affairs.[55][56] Frazer cites Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, where he wrote, "I tremble" at the thought that "God is just," and he warned of eventual "supernatural influence" to abolish the scourge of slavery That's quite a few Founding Fathers who were either "deists" or had deist tendencies, Bob. I concede that Wikipedia isn't always the most accurate source of such information. But you'll have to cite a more reputable source if you want to claim that these men were strictly God-fearing Christians and not Deists. Willie Green  posted on  2015-04-22   20:23:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: TooConservative, BobCeleste, redleghunter (#14) (Edited) Apparently, it was fine for the Founders to become traitorous rebels and depose the rule of their lawful king but it is unthinkable to dispose of some puny temporary mediocrity like the (generally loathsome) presidents of the last half-century. For the American revolution, the issue was always representation. Apparently a ruler can be horrible as long as he taxes you via your elected representatives. With that said, redleghunter's response is pretty much defensible from a both a secular and religious (civilizational Christian) point of view of a just war. Also, they were Protestant heathens - to quote the Godfather "They're animals anyway, so let them lose their souls". :) Pericles  posted on  2015-04-22   20:33:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: Pericles (#4) and thus inherintly stupid. Inherintly stupid? Lmao Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-04-22   21:19:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: redleghunter, BobCeleste (#5) Preachers today also saw a civil colonial government rise up against the crown. Not churches. We had 13 duly elected legislatures which rebelled against the crown. Not a group of Presbetarian preachers rebelling against the crown. And the Black Regiment? The Presbyterian Rebellion History; Posted on: 2008-11-11 12:47:07 by Harry Seabrook It is estimated that two-thirds of the 3 million Americans at the time of the Revolutionary War were Reformed Protestants, and even that leaves out the many Episcopalians, who had a Reformed confession in the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the descendants of the French Huguenots. Presbyterians, above all, were responsible for convincing the colonists to revolt even though, prior to the war, about 40% of the population was pro-British. "Whatever the cause, the Calvinists were the only fighting Protestants. It was they whose faith gave them courage to stand up for the Reformation. In England, Scotland, France, Holland, they, and they only, did the work, and but for them the Reformation would have been crushed... If it had not been for Calvinists, Huguenots, Puritans, and whatever you like to call them, the Pope and Philip would have won, and we should either be Papists or Socialists." ~ Sir John Skelton Image: "Put Watts into 'em, boys! Give 'em Watts!" The Rev. James Caldwell and his famous hymnals. "[Calvinists] are the true heroes of England. They founded England, in spite of the corruption of the Stuarts, by the exercise of duty, by the practice of justice, by obstinate toil, by vindication of right, by resistance to oppression, by the conquest of liberty, by the repression of vice. They founded Scotland; they founded the United States; at this day they are, by their descendants, founding Australia and colonizing the world." ~ French atheist Hippolyte Taine (1828 to 1893) "Calvinism has been the chief source of republican government." ~ Lorraine Boettner "In Calvinism lies the origin and guarantee of our constitutional liberties." ~ Goren van Prinsterer Historian George Bancroft called Calvin "the father of America," and added, "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty." "John Calvin was the virtual founder of America." ~ German historian Leopold von Ranke "The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster." ~ George Bancroft It is no wonder that King James I once said: "Presbytery agreeth with monarchy like God with the Devil." In England, our First War for Independence was referred to as the "Presbyterian Rebellion." A Hessian captain (one of the 30,000 German mercenaries used by England) wrote in 1778, "Call this war by whatever name you may, only call it not an American rebellion; it is nothing more or less than a Scots-Irish Presbyterian rebellion." Another monarchist wrote to King George III: "I fix all of the blame for these extraordinary proceedings on the Presbyterians. They have been the chief and principle instruments in all of these flaming measures. They always do and ever will act against government from that restless and turbulent anti-monarchical spirit which has always distinguished them everywhere." In a letter from New York dated November 1776, the Earl of Dartmouth was informed by one of his representatives: "Presbyterianism is really at the bottom of this whole conspiracy, has supplied it with Vigour, and will never rest, till something is decided on it." John D. Sergeant, a member of the Continental Congress from New Jersey, credited the Scots-Irish with being the main pillar of support for the Revolution in Pennsylvania. A New Englander, not supportive of the Presbyterians, agreed, calling the Scots-Irish "the most God-provoking democrats this side of Hell." Prime Minister Horace Walpole rose in Parliament to say: "There is no use crying about it. Cousin America has eloped with a Presbyterian parson," referring to John Witherspoon, president of Princeton University (the "seminary of sedition"), and the only minister to sign the Declaration of Independence. Witherspoon was not only one of the founding fathers, he was the instructor of the founding fathers. Nine of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention had been students of Witherspoon's. In fact, David Barton notes that 87 of the 243 founding fathers graduated from Presbyterian Princeton, so it is hardly surprising that the founders created a republic. "When Cornwallis was driven back to ultimate retreat and surrender at Yorktown, all of the colonels of the Colonial Army but one were Presbyterian elders. More than one-half of all the soldiers and officers of the American Army during the Revolution were Presbyterians." ~ J.R. Sizoo "From 1706 to the opening of the revolutionary struggle, the only body in existence which stood for our present national political organization [republicanism] was the General Synod of the American Presbyterian Church... The Congregational Churches of New England had no connection with each other, and had no power apart from the civil government. The Episcopal Church was without organization in the colonies, was dependent for support and a ministry on the Established Church of England, and was filled with an intense loyalty to the British monarchy. The Reformed Dutch Church did not become an efficient and independent organization until 1771, and the German Reformed Church did not attain to that condition until 1793. The Baptist Churches were separate organizations, the Methodists were practically unknown, and the Quakers were non-combatants." ~ Dr. W.H. Roberts Only the Presbyterian Church lined up solidly behind the colonists, and without them independence would not have been possible. Oh, and that Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson? It came along a full year after Scots-Irish Presbyterians in Charlotte, North Carolina, wrote their own declaration of independence. The Mecklenburg Declaration, written on May 20, 1775, "by unanimous resolution declared the people free and independent, and that all laws and commissions from the king were henceforth null and void," as Lorraine Boettner writes. Jefferson's biographer notes: "Everyone must be persuaded that one of these papers must have been borrowed from the other." George Bancroft observes that the Mecklenburg assembly consisted of "twenty-seven staunch Calvinists, one-third of whom were ruling elders in the Presbyterian church, including the President and Secretary, and one was a Presbyterian minister." Ephraim Brevard, who drafted the document, and after whom Brevard, NC, is named, was a Presbyterian ruling elder and a Princeton graduate. (Mecklenburg is far more desirable than anything inspired by John Locke. It is interesting to note that these Charlotte Presbyterians, who had been under the guidance of Alexander Craighead, later rejected the non-covenantal national Constitution.) "[Patrick Henry's] mother drilled him in Presbyterian or Calvinistic theology, which provided the backbone for the American resistance to British tyranny. As one author has noted, Calvinism 'has been able to inspire and sustain the bravest efforts ever made by man to break the yoke of unjust authority...' It has 'borne ever an inflexible front to illusion and mendacity, and has preferred rather to be ground to powder, like flint, than to bend before violence, or melt under enervating temptation.' By the time of the American Revolution, approximately two-thirds of the colonial population had been 'trained in the school of Calvin.' Henry, through his mother, was a spiritual descendant of Calvin and represented the liberating element of a Reformed theology and world-view." ~ Isaac Backus One example among many in the "Black Regiment" (of parsons) was the Rev. James Caldwell of the First Presbyterian Church of Elizabethtown, New Jersey. Caldwell also served as chaplain to the Continental Army. A Redcoat murdered his wife by firing into his home. Leaving his children in the care of the townsfolk, Caldwell rejoined the fight, which had moved to Springfield. When wadding for ammunition ran low, Caldwell ran to the First Presbyterian Church of Springfield and returned with as many hymnals as he could carry. Tearing out the pages, he yelled, "Put Watts into 'em, boys! Give 'em Watts!" He was killed in battle one year later. This was a man who carried pistols with him to church and laid them on the pulpit before he began the sermon. One of the nine orphaned Caldwell children became a U.S. Supreme Court clerk and worked for the cause of African colonization. A town in Liberia is named Caldwell in his memory. War hero Lafayette, George Washington's close friend, and the man who incidentally was given the honor of naming a cousin of mine from 5 generations ago (Carolina Lafayette Seabrook), took another of the Caldwell children home with him to France. During the feudal era, bishops rode to war at the head of armies. There was a time in America when this was still the case. Without those Calvinistic Presbyterians, there would have been no Revolution and no America. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-04-22   21:25:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: CZ82 (#9) Might explain English as a third language. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3) redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-22   23:34:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: Willie Green (#8) Many of our Founding Fathers were actually Deists No they were not. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3) redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-22   23:40:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: Willie Green, GarySpFc, liberator, BobCeleste, CZ82 (#15) Many of our Founding Fathers were actually Deists Three don't even come close to a dozen. How many times must I post here the church affiliations of the founders? Leftists love to trot out Jefferson and Franklin as if they were the only founders. Also selectively quoting them. Over 90% of the founders were practicing Christians of Trinitarian denominations. The First Great Awakening was the major faith influence in colonial America. The Enlightenment swept Western European nations but had little impact in the American colonies. The revolution influenced by the Enlightenment was the French Revolution not the American revolution. In nations where the Enlightenment flourished, churches diminished. Fewer pews were occupied. In colonial America the Christian faith flourished and church membership grew. Call your alma mater and get your money back. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3) redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-23   0:01:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: TooConservative (#18) Without those Calvinistic Presbyterians, there would have been no Revolution and no America. Which their duly elected officials broke ties with the crown. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3) redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-23   0:06:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: Pericles (#16) You haven't provided any evidence Protestants are heathens. Other than they don't submit to the Pharisees in funny hats who worship statues and pictures. What's the second commandment again? "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3) redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-23   0:10:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: TooConservative (#14) You won't get any straight answers to this one. Apparently, it was fine for the Founders to become traitorous rebels and depose the rule of their lawful king but it is unthinkable to dispose of some puny temporary mediocrity like the (generally loathsome) presidents of the last half-century. Part of military strategy is the feasibility of military success. That is also a tenet of the just war theory. I'm sure our founders kept this in mind. Would our founders have declared independence from the crown if the colonies were as close as say Whales or Ireland? Probably not as they knew the history surely of crushed Irish rebellions. Declaring independence was bold and the DoI a bold document. However there was the possibility the crown would capitulate to some of the grievances and spare a cross Atlantic war. The colonies had interior lines. As long as they had local support they could stay fighting. As long as the will was there England would have to keep sending men and supplies constantly over a large body of water. The founders knew this and knew independence was high risk but quite feasible. Pastors knew this as well. They had congregations mixed with Tories and Patriots. They knew that the tenet of feasibility was there given for the same reasons above. Where the founders took most of the risk was with Acceptability. Most historians put support for independence at just over 30%, indifference and crown support gaining the majority view. They took risk in thinking they could garner the undecided or indifferent populace. Seemed to work out. Suitability was never a concern as the colonial legislatures voted for independence. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3) redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-23   0:30:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: redleghunter (#23) You haven't provided any evidence Protestants are heathens. Other than they don't submit to the Pharisees in funny hats who worship statues and pictures. What's the second commandment again? It is self evident that all men are created equal and Protestants are heretics. Pericles  posted on  2015-04-23   0:47:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: Pericles (#25) You sure you aren't Catholic? You know the other One True Church the Orthodox are in rebellion against. Like the Highlander movie "there can only be one." The Orthodox were the first Protestants. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3) redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-23   0:56:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: Pericles (#25) BTW, the actual Exodus 20 second commandment is: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; So there is that. Many churches violate the second commandment. Some bury it. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3) redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-23   1:00:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: redleghunter (#26) (Edited) ou sure you aren't Catholic? You know the other One True Church the Orthodox are in rebellion against. Like the Highlander movie "there can only be one." The Orthodox were the first Protestants. The so called Catholics aka Latins left the Orthodox. The Orthodox only call themselves that to not confuse westerners. The Orthodox still calls itself the Catholic church (Catholic being a common Greek word for universal) and to further confuse you ill educated westerners - the Orthodox Church considers itself thee Roman Catholic Church (Byzantine empire = Roman empire). Pericles  posted on  2015-04-23   2:08:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: redleghunter (#27) (Edited) TW, the actual Exodus 20 second commandment is: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; So there is that. Many churches violate the second commandment. Some bury it. The reason was that God could not be seen to be represented. Then Jesus was born and could be seen and touched. Also, the Arc had craven images of Angels. Also, you Protestants forget that Jesus came along and ended the Old Covenant. Do you circumcise your male children in a religious ceremony? Do you keep Kosher? Pericles  posted on  2015-04-23   2:13:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: redleghunter (#24) Suitability was never a concern as the colonial legislatures voted for independence. Unfortunately, the colonial legislatures were only empowered to deal with minor issues of home rule. They never had the authority to vote themselves independence. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-04-23   6:06:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: redleghunter (#21) How many times must I post here the church affiliations of the founders? Leftists love to trot out Jefferson and Franklin as if they were the only founders. Also selectively quoting them. Until they give up on their propaganda, which will be a long time. You know I wonder how many of the monarchs in the past just up and seized power for themselves?? And it's funny you never ever hear the Leftys complain about that, only that freedom seeking men overthrew the monarchs. Wasn't George the 3rd a Protestant himself?? “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€� CZ82  posted on  2015-04-23   6:58:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: nolu chan (#12) 4. If Romans chapter 13 was not a problem to Christians revolting against the crown in the 1770's why is it today? The Bible and all else is useful when it supports what someone wants, or if they can bend it or misrepresent it to support what they want, or oppose what they do not want. So, tell me your take on Romans 3, feel free to go into as much detail as you can. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-04-23   7:34:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: TooConservative (#14) You won't get any straight answers to this one. Apparently, it was fine for the Founders to become traitorous rebels and depose the rule of their lawful king but it is unthinkable to dispose of some puny temporary mediocrity like the (generally loathsome) presidents of the last half-century. I'm afraid that I am starting to agree with you. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-04-23   7:36:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: BobCeleste (#33) It's one of those arguments where you can be right and your opponents know that you're right but they'll do anything and everything to distract from that or to drag the discussion away from the central question. You can see it right here on this thread. Gee, and the Right wonders why we can't win anything any more when the GOP willingly creates a more and more powerful government at the behest of the big banking interests and the usual slobs at the CoC and the think tanks. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-04-23   7:42:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: redleghunter (#21) How many times must I post here the church affiliations of the founders? If you posted it 7 times a day, it would not be enough, perhaps 7 times 70 a day might start to reach some after 10 or 20 years, if they actually read first and post second. If you go to the search page of ChristianPatriot.com and put in the word "homosexual" without the quotation marks, you will find that I have been consistent since ACP's conception, yet the other day I got an email condemning me for my support of the homosexual life style. Some only read the heading and then post or email a condemnation. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-04-23   7:43:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: Pericles (#29) Also, the Arc had craven images of Angels. Graven. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-04-23   7:43:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: redleghunter (#21) How many times must I post here the church affiliations of the founders? If you have one, I've never seen it, so a comprehensive list would be interesting. Leftists love to trot out Jefferson and Franklin as if they were the only founders. In addition to Jefferson & Franklin, the excerpt I posted names Madison, Hamilton, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, Hugh Williamson, Elihu Palmer and even to some degree, George Washington. Don't forget: prior to the Revolution and our Constitution & Bill of Rights, religious tolerance was inconsistant in the Colonies. In fact, many colonies had official State religions and participation in politics/government was prohibited unless individuals were members of the officially established state religion. So many of the founding fathers that you claim were "Christian" may have been "Christian in name only"... practicing Public Christianity for political purposes while actually practicing Deism in private... (or perhaps even non-religious agnostics.) Call your alma mater and get your money back. Why? I didn't waste my money on some worthless liberal arts degree in history, political science, philosophy or whatever... My background is Engineering Economics & Business, and has served me quite well over the years. Willie Green  posted on  2015-04-23   8:08:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: TooConservative (#14) 4. If Romans chapter 13 was not a problem to Christians revolting against the crown in the 1770's why is it today? You won't get any straight answers to this one. Apparently, it was fine for the Founders to become traitorous rebels and depose the rule of their lawful king but it is unthinkable to dispose of some puny temporary mediocrity like the (generally loathsome) presidents of the last half-century. Well, Too, you know that if I give an answer, it will be very straight. You can probably write it yourself for me. Taking the question as phrased "IF Romans chapter 13 was not a problem to Christians..." The answer is that it should have been a problem for them, but it should only have been a very minor problem. Paul is not God. But what Jesus had to say about doing unto others, turning the other cheek, paying taxes and not killing, and what YHWH and the Elohiym had to say about not killing, should have all come together to have presented a great big showstopping problem to the Christians of the 1770s. Having proceeded out onto the very thin ice of "Here are too swords!", they then fell through that ice when they didn't "Do unto others as they would have done unto them" by freeing their slaves. The American Revolution is morally indefensible, and most of those who killed in its name ended up in Gehenna on account of it. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-23   8:20:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: Willie Green (#37) States continued to have Established Religions under the Constitution until the 1820s. The First Amendment doesn't prevent states from establishing an official religion and making everybody in the state pay taxes to support it (or rather, didn't, now it does); it merely prevent(ed) the federal government from doing so. Of course the Supreme Court has changed that by its decisions. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-23   8:23:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: Vicomte13 (#38) Well, Too, you know that if I give an answer, it will be very straight. You can probably write it yourself for me. I don't have your obvious talent with rhetoric and prose style. However: the Revolution was completed prior to any writing of the Constitution. You want to judge the Founders' performance as a whole over decades. The question, as you well know, was the legitimacy of revolt against a lawful king as seen through the lens of Romans 13. So the legitimacy of the Revolution does not depend on other acts of the Founders or the Constitution/BoR they wrote years later. So all of that business about freeing their slaves is an anachronistic editorializing on subsequent history, not the revolt itself. The Founders were relying more on the footnotes from Isaiah in the Geneva bible, the version carried by most colonists (especially rascally Presbyterians) that caused King James to produce the Authorized Version. James' one demand: no footnotes! He was right but he was too late to turn that Presbyterian tide of rebellion in the American colonies. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-04-23   8:41:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (41 - 102) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com