http://www.trunews.com/assemblies-god-pastor-walkout-after-lgbt-rebuke/

Assemblies of God Pastor Sees Walkout after LGBT Rebuke

(TRUNEWS)  On the Tuesday, June 28th edition of TRUNEWS, Oklahoma City pastor Terry Bates shares how listeners walked out of his Assemblies of God church after a message on homosexuality one Sunday morning.

Bates is pastor of Oklahoma City Faith Church, a congregation of 1800 located in the state’s influential capital city.  The church, founded over 91 years ago, has seen many changes through the years.  However, Pastor Bates in his discussion with TRUNEWS host Rick Wiles says that this may be the most challenging in the church’s long history.

After a series of messages over several weeks encouraging the listeners to respond to the ‘fire of God’, Pastor Bates waded into the controversy over homosexuality, highlighting it’s sin as compared to Scripture:

“I was literally shocked, personally, when I began to see people get up, move out, walk out the door kinda shaking their heads. “

Bates says that the people who were most likely to walk out on a message on the Biblical stance of homosexuality are those people with relationship connections with those in the LGBT community.  Be it a son, daughter or parent, many going to traditional churches that seek to maintain Biblical standards are being actively challenged by the LGBT agenda in our nation.

Host Rick Wiles pointed out that the Assemblies of God has a long tradition of being one of the bedrock denominations when it comes to Biblical values, and he was surprised that listeners and members did not know what the Scriptures has to say on the issue.  Pastor Bates responded:

“I think they do (know the Bible).  I think that many across our movement, whether it’s the Assemblies of God or any other mainline denomination, or even the conservative movement, there are many people who are wrestling with this issue.  (They say) I know what the Bible says, but my  friend over here has this ‘special’ situation going on.  I think what we’ve done is we’ve put ‘asterisks’ in the Bible, so that when we read about something that we don’t agree with, or we have a relationship with someone who is doing something different, we want to put an asterisk or footnote saying that doesn’t apply.”

Pastor Bates insists that it all comes back to the integrity of the Scriptures regardless of what our opinion or general culture around us says is what is acceptable.  The church as a whole was at first tolerant, and then acceptable of sin, including homosexuality.

The pastor pointed out that even though he is willing to call sin, ‘sin’, that does not negate the desire of God to work in the life of an individual and transform them.  He says of Oklahoma City Faith Church:

“I want to be clear; anybody can come to my church. I don’t care what your lifestyle is, I don’t care if you’ve had a sex change.  That’s not my issue.  But don’t come in and expect us to rewrite the Bible to accomodate your life or your choices.  I’m still going to preach the same message, because it is the standard-bearer, it is the plumb-line that everything else is measure against.”

This isn’t the first time that the church has received a backlash because of Bates’ messages.  Several months ago, some of the church windows were blown out in response to sermons delivered by the fiery pastor.

The entire interview with Pastor Terry Bates can be heard on the June 28th edition of TRUNEWS with Rick Wiles

Diana Pullman of Z3 News, who also attends Oklahoma City Faith Church writes:

I don’t know what’s happening in everyone else’s home church, but let me tell you what we’re experiencing.

Our pastor has begun preaching a message of repentance, saying things like, “It doesn’t matter who becomes President, no man can save this country!”

“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”

I’ve watched him transform to preach this end time message, and he’s on fire for the Lord. But as soon as his messages became politically incorrect, people began to walk out of the services – right in the middle of his messages. Tithes and offerings are down 50%, and he’s getting letters saying he needs to repent for his messages!

Saints, a huge separation is taking place. I agree and am praying fervently that the blinders will come off. And I’m confident that the great shaking to come will jolt many wide awake. Our Lord is merciful in bringing this shaking.

What Is the Position of the Assemblies of God on Homosexuality?

Officially, the Assemblies of God believes strongly that God has declared great displeasure and opposition toward homosexual conduct. However, He yearns to restore and forgive all who come to Him, including homosexuals. Unfortunately, many today mislabel those who speak out against the sin of homosexuality as hate-mongers and prejudiced people seeking to oppress and take away the rights of homosexuals. But these persons view homosexuality from a skewed social perspective devoid of true biblical morality. The Church, however, is called to be faithful to God’s Word in all things. For this reason the Assemblies of God opposes homosexuality and the gay lifestyle recognizing such as sin. But we encourage all members to reach out in love to homosexuals extending to them the grace that leads us all to Christ’s forgiveness.

Homosexuality is both a sin against God and mankind. It runs contrary to the divine plan, purpose, and will of God who created us in His image (Genesis 1:27) and redeemed us so that this image, marred because of sin, might be renewed (Colossians 3:10). Most fundamentally, homosexuality is sin because it perverts the created order of human sexuality, the heterosexual fulfillment of both man and woman (1 Corinthians 7:2-5). In creating the first man and woman, God ultimately established the family consisting of a father, a mother, and eventually children. Society is founded on this social unit which propagates the human race. In total contrast, the lifestyle and practice of homosexual couples establish a social unit that thwarts that process and the creative purposes of God for humanity.

Clearly the Bible states homosexual practice is sin. Scriptures which denounce homosexuality are found in both the Old and New Testaments. Advocates of homosexuality often attempt to rationalize, reinterpret, and explain away key biblical truths to justify their acts. Such abuse of inspired Scripture is wrong. Along with the passages that clearly describe homosexual conduct as sin (see below), the Bible speaks repeatedly about God’s divinely ordained plan of heterosexual relationships and marriage.

Genesis 19. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the “men” of Sodom demand to “know” the angelic visitors of Lot (v.5, KJV). Attempts to describe the request as merely a desire to get acquainted with the strangers does not fit the context. Other biblical passages link Sodom with sexual immorality and perversion (2 Peter 2:6-7; Jude 7).

Leviticus 18:22. The specific command that a man is not to “lie with a man as one lies with a woman; [for] that is detestable” is sometimes attacked by pro-homosexual scholars who argue that Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law. But there is a sharp distinction between the dietary or ceremonial laws abolished in the New Testament (Mark 7:19; Hebrews 10:8-10) and the moral laws reinforced in the New Testament. They are still applicable today. Breaking the ceremonial laws resulted in temporary uncleanness; breaking the moral laws meant severe punishment or even death (Leviticus 11 and 24).

Romans 1:26, 27. This New Testament passage is the most pointed and clear condemnation of homosexuality (among men or women) in the Bible. “Women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. . . . Men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” Some pro-homosexual scholars claim that Paul’s statements were addressed to first-century believers and thus are not applicable today. But God’s moral laws do not change.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10. God’s inclusion of homosexual conduct with other specific sexual and social sins is clear from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church: “Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Some defenders of the homosexual lifestyle have tried to explain away the terms “male prostitutes” and “homosexual offenders” by claiming that they refer to general immoral behavior rather than homosexual practice. But such a meaning of the Greek cannot be found in first-century literature and the translation would result in needless redundancy, for Paul began his list with “the sexually immoral.” The two words refer to the sins of passive and active homosexual behavior.

Some pro-homosexual advocates try to refute the biblical injunctions against homosexuality by saying the Bible speaks against promiscuity and prostitution, not against loving, committed gay relationships. Some unfaithful spouses of heterosexual marriages have tried to justify adultery on the same grounds, but nowhere does Scripture suggest that loving, committed relationships of any kind can turn sin into righteousness. God does not permit mankind to reinterpret the clear teaching of Scripture to justify personal sinful desires.

As Christians we must ask what Paul meant in Romans by calling homosexual acts unnatural (Romans 1:26, 27). Human logic tells us they are unnatural because if practiced universally, the human race would soon die out. From a social perspective they are unnatural because they are degrading to the sensitivities of the large majority of the population. (Some homosexuals claim wrongly that 10 percent of the population is homosexual. This exaggerated percentage, based on Alfred Kinsey’s faulty sexual-practices survey in 1948 and 1970, has been accurately set at between 1 and 3 percent in several recent and better documented studies).

One of the myths propounded by pro-homosexual advocates is that homosexual orientation is genetically determined and that people have no choice in the matter. There is no scientific evidence to support this claim. Linking a particular behavior with a specific gene is considered highly unlikely by geneticists. Some would like to believe this myth, for it could be used to excuse all sin and evil behavior. In contrast, ministers and psychologists are treating homosexuality with success, which further discredits the genetic theory. The fact that God’s transforming power has changed the lifestyle of many homosexuals is well documented.

Finally, homosexual acts are unnatural because of their high correlation with major illnesses and terminal disease. In viewing Romans 1:27 we must ask what is the “due penalty” mentioned “for their perversion.” Though AIDS is not necessarily a direct judgment from God, as innocents are sometimes the victims of the sin of others, it remains a disastrous overarching consequence of sin through the fall of man (see Genesis 3). Contrary to the claims by homosexual public relations campaigns that gays and lesbians are normal, healthy, average people, the opposite is true. Former homosexuals describe a disgusting lifestyle of perversion and sexual obsession. In a study of the median age of death for heterosexuals and homosexuals, less than 2 per cent of homosexuals survived to age 65 while married and single heterosexual men and women living past 65 ranged from 57 to 80 percent.

Clearly on every front whether it be moral, spiritual, physical, or psychological, the practice of homosexuality has proven itself devoid of any individual good or social benefit. Furthermore, the historical record shows homosexuality as detrimental to the well-being of the individual participant, the extended family, and society at large.

At every turn the Assemblies of God refutes the practice, the acceptance, and the promotion of homosexuality, yet admonishes all Christians to reach out in love to all homosexuals so they too may repent and know the forgiveness and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

CONCERNS:

Some people ask, “Why can’t Christians live and let live, leaving homosexuals alone?” At one time Christians were silent concerning the evil practice of homosexuals. History shows homosexuality has been around since early times, and as long as it was not openly flaunted, homosexuals were seldom challenged. But today, homosexuals have become aggressive in pushing their agenda. The church has been forced to answer.

Today, families with members who choose a homosexual lifestyle sometimes call for social acceptance of the deviant lifestyle. Some churches hearing this cry or impacted by revelations of homosexual clergy within their ranks have responded by advocating a gay-friendly theology of compassion. But lowering God’s holy standards to mankind’s sinful preferences is an abomination in God’s sight. As members of the body of Christ, we must not ignore God’s clear admonitions.

The homosexual agenda has already impacted public education, public policy, the military, government, politics, business, entertainment, media, and religion. As inroads have been made into these areas, both the arts and the media have openly promoted acceptance of its sinful behavior. Major companies are now appealing to the homosexual market through sponsorship of homosexual events that influence general public opinion about homosexuality. Such aggressiveness demands that Christians not sit idly by as this morally deficient agenda is pushed.

In the face of a militant homosexual movement that is pressing for legal and social acceptance of homosexuality, the church must keep its focus. First, homosexuals are sinners like everyone and need God’s grace, love, and forgiveness. Second, homosexuals can through the miracle of the new birth be set free from the power of sin and live changed moral lives. The church must reach out to all sinners with the love of Christ, no matter what the sin. And we must never let the declining moral climate of our nation pressure us into condoning what God condemns.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/06/17255/

The Data on Children in Same-Sex Households Get More Depressing

A new study examines the risk of depression and other negative outcomes among adolescents and young adults raised by same-sex couples. 

A new study released earlier this month in the journal Depression Research and Treatment contributes to mounting evidence against the “no differences” thesis about the children of same-sex households, mere months after media sources prematurely—and mistakenly—proclaimed the science settled.

One of the most compelling aspects of this new study is that it is longitudinal, evaluating the same people over a long period of time. Indeed, its data source—the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health—is one of the most impressive, thorough, and expensive survey research efforts still ongoing. This study is not the first to make use of the “Add Health” data to test the “no differences” thesis. But it’s the first to come to different conclusions, for several reasons. One of those is its longitudinal aspect. Some problems only emerge over time.

Professor Paul Sullins, the study’s author, found that during adolescence the children of same-sex parents reported marginally less depression than the children of opposite-sex parents. But by the time the survey was in its fourth wave—when the kids had become young adults between the ages of 24 and 32—their experiences had reversed. Indeed, dramatically so: over half of the young-adult children of same-sex parents report ongoing depression, a surge of 33 percentage points (from 18 to 51 percent of the total). Meanwhile, depression among the young-adult children of opposite-sex parents had declined from 22 percent of them down to just under 20 percent.

A few other findings are worth mentioning as well. Obesity surged among both groups, but the differences became significant over time, with 31 percent obesity among young-adult children of opposite-sex parents, well below the 72 percent of those from same-sex households. While fewer young-adult children of same-sex parents felt “distant from one or both parents” as young adults than they did as teens, the levels are still sky-high at 73 percent (down from 93 percent during adolescence). Feelings of distance among the young-adult children of opposite-sex parents actually increased, but they started at a lower level (from 36 percent in adolescence to 44 percent in young adulthood).

To be fair, life in mom-and-pop households is not simply harmonious by definition. It is, however, a recognition that it is not just stability that matters (though it most certainly does). It’s also about biology, love, sexual difference, and modeling.

Additionally, more kids of same-sex parents said “a parent or caregiver had “slapped, hit or kicked you,” said “things that hurt your feelings or made you feel you were not wanted or loved,” or “touched you in a sexual way, forced you to touch him or her in a sexual way, or forced you to have sex relations.” In fairness, this is a grouping of traumatic events that strikes me as unbalanced, what with the rather profound difference between hurt feelings and molestation. A follow-up inquiry revealed very few reports of the latter among Wave IV respondents.

This study is not above reproach. No study is. And I dare say Sullins’s recent evaluations of National Health Information Survey data provided a more robust evaluation of the “no differences” thesis than this one of the Add Health. A key limitation here is sample size. There are only twenty confident cases of respondents with same-sex parents in this large data collection project. This makes the same-sex household estimates displayed in the graph imprecise, but it does nothing to undermine the significance of the differences between groups. Part of the reason for the small sample has to do with the era in which the data collection first began. Same-sex households were very unusual, and the Add Health (as well as the New Family Structures Study) captures that. I have been quick to criticize use of such small-N studies in the past, and I’m not about to shift blindly into high praise here just because the results reinforce what I found in the NFSS. But the sample size issue is not the author’s fault. In fact, Sullins discerned that over half of the cases of same-sex households used in previous Add Health studies that declared “no differences” were households in which an opposite-sex parent was still involved, and elected to drop them from his analyses. It mattered.

Lingering questions remain. Why the surge in depression after becoming adults? This is especially curious given that the “distance” from their parents diminished since adolescence. Why such high rates of obesity? (It’s certainly not the media-tailored image of the same-sex parenting movement.) The author himself holds that any such answers would be “necessarily speculative.” Why is it published in an open-source medical journal rather than a social science journal? I don’t presume to know the process, but I would hazard a guess that rather than endure the increasingly politicized nature of peer review in the social sciences, the author prefers a less freighted avenue that allows scholars and public alike to examine the evidence rather than await the benighted imprimatur that a more prestigious pay-walled journal can give (and has given) to far weaker studies. If science is supposed to be open, Sullins’s work is certainly that. I don’t blame him.

Sullins has emerged as a versatile analyst, applying the same questions to multiple datasets. I have met him, and can attest that his motivations are similar to mine: We have seen the data and we are convinced that they cannot sustain the “no differences” thesis except by torturing them. (That is, by hiding the basic story behind sets of control variables, or worse, concealing it within privately held data that no one else can scrutinize.) But that is exactly what a media-driven, scholar-fed political movement accomplished. Why did it have to happen this way?

For whatever reason—and I welcome intellectual assessments of the phenomenon—there is a nonpartisan American tendency to draw ethical conclusions from empirical data. What is matters a great deal here. But discerning what is among a small, politicized minority reaching for unique rights is fraught with challenges. Hence the battle over what the data have to say about same-sex households with children took on incredible urgency. If social scientists could document that the kids were all right, it would answer the ethical and legal question of what to do next. Hence the unbelievably politicized furor over research on this subject. Mind you, this is not how Europeans have elected to discern the matter of same-sex marriage and adoption—just us Americans. (A similar empirical contest is currently infusing debates about gun control.)

The social science on same-sex parenting will continue, but since the Obergefell decision “settled” the legal question about same-sex marriage, the skirmishes will be minor compared to the blood sport witnessed a few years ago. Empirical truth is no longer quite so threatening to the wishes of some adults. The vulnerability of children, on the other hand, has not abated.

Whether they get one of each or not, children deserve a mother and a father whose love for them—and for each other—is the source of their life and socialization. In his conclusion, Sullins concurs: “Well-intentioned concern for revealing negative information about a stigmatized minority does not justify leaving children without support in an environment that may be problematic or dangerous for their dignity and security.”

Mark Regnerus is associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin and a senior fellow at the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture.

Sent from my iPhone

Chemotherapy

Only works 97% of the time

https://www.facebook.com/anonews.co/videos/1258615094150047/

From Candidate to Nominee

From Candidate to Nominee

http://youtu.be/tK5VjGTtKL8

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/27/8-best-quotes-from-clarence-thomass-texas-abortion-dissent/#.V3F8v89Y1YA.twitter

8 Best Quotes From Clarence Thomas’s Texas Abortion Dissent

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of abortion proponents today, striking down a Texas state law that required abortion clinics to adhere to the same health codes as outpatient facilities and that all abortionists must have hospital admitting privileges.

In the majority opinion, the justices who ruled in favor of abortion advocates in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt argued Texas’s laws were in contention with a 1992 Supreme Court ruling (Casey) in which the court had determined that laws restricting abortions must not place an “undue burden” on a woman seeking to terminate her pregnancy.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion ripping apart the court’s tendency to bend over backwards to accommodate abortion. Here are eight of the sickest burns in that opinion.

1. The court’s interpretation of “undue burden” is confusing as hell.

Today’s opinion does resemble Casey in one respect: After disregarding significant aspects of the Court’s prior jurisprudence, the majority applies the undue-burden standard in a way that will surely mystify lower courts for years to come.

2. Judges aren’t medical experts — even if they try to appoint themselves as such.

Moreover, by second-guessing medical evidence and making its own assessments of ‘quality of care’ issues. . . the majority reappoints this Court as ‘the country’s ex officio medical board with powers to disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States.’ . . . And the majority seriously burdens States, which must guess at how much more compelling their interests must be to pass muster and what ‘commonsense inferences’ of an undue burden this Court will identify next.

3. Arbitrary standards mess up constitutional law.

As the Court applies whatever standard it likes to any given case, nothing but empty words separates our constitutional decisions from judicial fiat.

4. The court just makes stuff up to get what it wants.

The illegitimacy of using ‘made-up tests’ to ‘displace longstanding national traditions as the primary determinant of what the Constitution means’ has long been apparent. . . The Constitution does not prescribe tiers of scrutiny. The three basic tiers— ‘rational basis,’ intermediate, and strict scrutiny—’are no more scientific than their names suggest, and a further element of randomness is added by the fact that it is largely up to us which test will be applied in each case.’. . .  But the problem now goes beyond that. If our recent cases illustrate anything, it is how easily the Court tinkers with levels of scrutiny to achieve its desired result.

5. Muzzling free speech? No problem. Defining marriage? Good luck.

Likewise, it is now easier for the government to restrict judicial candidates’ campaign speech than for the Government to define marriage—even though the former is subject to strict scrutiny and the latter was supposedly subject to some form of rational-basis review.

6. Made-up rights don’t trump those enumerated in the Constitution.

The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate. A law either infringes a constitutional right, or not; there is no room for the judiciary to invent tolerable degrees of encroachment.

7. There are too many legal exceptions for made-up rights.

Our law is now so riddled with special exceptions for special rights that our decisions deliver neither predictability nor the promise of a judiciary bound by the rule of law.

8. Some may call the decision a victory, but it’s a loss for America.

Today’s decision will prompt some to claim victory, just as it will stiffen opponents’ will to object. But the entire Nation has lost something essential. The majority’s embrace of a jurisprudence of rights-specific exceptions and balancing tests is ‘a regrettable concession of defeat—an acknowledgement that we have passed the point where ‘law,’ properly speaking, has any further application.’

The decision is the most significant abortion ruling since the Carhart ruling in 2007, which upheld a federal ban on partial-birth abortions.

Sent from my iPhone

http://ipatriot.com/god-13-colonies/

God In the 13 Colonies

God In The 13 Colonies is a simple reminder of the involvement that God has had in the formation and development of the United States politically, socially, financially, and spiritually. His involvement and oversight were repeatedly mentioned and invoked by the Founding Fathers at both the state and federal levels. The American Declaration of Independence provides the very foundation for the original colonies’ rejection of British rule and authority. The foundation laid was that Britain had violated the rules of God in their mismanagement of its empire, and that ultimately the rights of men and women are issued by God Himself and not the government.

Where did they get the ideas they espoused? They got them from reading and practicing the principles found in the Bible. The impact of the Bible on their thinking was so prevalent that it influenced the formation of the Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and every state constitution. If that is truly the case then we should see evidence of God in the 13 colonies, shouldn’t we?

There seems to be an ongoing debate about the appropriateness (or inappropriateness, as some would say) of including – or even mentioning – God in politics. Many people have a misconstrued impression of the involvement of God in the 13 colonies, and insist that God was deliberately excluded from the governmental structure of America. They frequently mention the fabled ‘separation of church and state’ in an attempt to distance themselves from God’s rule and authority. Since this outlook seems to be so pervasive I decided to do some reviewing to settle the question using facts and history, not personal bias and opinion.

Of the 13 original American Colonies, every one of them mentions God in their reasoning for the establishment of a new form of government (both state and federal). This reasoning, acceptance and acknowledgement in and upon Him is worded within the founding documents of these several states, namely in the State Constitutions. I have italicized and emboldened the passages which reference the Lord and/or the reasons for their gratefulness.

Connecticut

“The People of Connecticut acknowledging with gratitude, the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government; do, in order more effectually to define, secure, and perpetuate the liberties, rights and privileges which they have derived from their ancestors; hereby, after a careful consideration and revision, ordain and establish the following constitution and form of civil government.”

Delaware

“Through Divine goodness, all people have by nature the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences, of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting reputation and property, and in general of obtaining objects suitable to their condition, without injury by one to another; and as these rights are essential to their welfare, for due exercise thereof, power is inherent in them; and therefore all just authority in the institutions of political society is derived from the people, and established with their consent, to advance their happiness; and they may for this end, as circumstances require, from time to time, alter their Constitution of government.”

Georgia

“To perpetuate the principles of free government, insure justice to all, preserve peace, promote the interest and happiness of the citizen and of the family, and transmit to posterity the enjoyment of liberty, we the people of Georgia, relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Maryland

“We, the People of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare:”

Massachusetts

“The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.

The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.

We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts” 

New Hampshire

New Hampshire did not contain a preamble to their State Constitution. However, they enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights and through the Articles .

1. “Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship GOD according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in his person, liberty or estate for worshipping GOD, in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession, sentiments or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or disturb others, in their religious worship. 
2. As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as the knowledge of these, is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the DEITY, and of public instruction in morality and religion; therefore, to promote those important purposes, the people of this state have a right to impower, and do hereby fully impower the legislature to authorize from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within this state, to make adequate provision at their own expence, for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality:”

New Jersey

“We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

New York

“We The People of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.”

North Carolina

“We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Pennsylvania

“WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Rhode Island

“We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution of government.”

South Carolina

“We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the preservation and perpetuation of the same.”

Virginia

Virginia did not contain a preamble to their entire State Constitution. However, they enumerated rights through the Articles of that Constitution, especially Section 16;

“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”

The God that the Founding Fathers referenced (in every single instance) was the God of the Bible. The Scriptures they so frequently mentioned are the Scriptures of the Bible. The religion of the day in the American colonies was the Christian religion. There is no mention of Allah, Buddha, Taoism, shamanism or anything else.

It’s crystal clear that the people who set up the governmental structure of the states referenced God’s involvement as the cause of their gratefulness. They acknowledged His protection and often invoked His guidance, meaning guidance in the very process of setting up – and administering – their new government! Since this is verifiable fact, then why would those very same people attempt to exclude God from the way we were to conduct ourselves in that same governmental structure? To present that as an ‘argument’ against including the Bible and Christian thought in governmental operations is, quite frankly, insane. If it was good enough for the Founding Fathers to have God in the 13 colonies, it ought to be good enough for us as well.

The next time someone wants to exclude Him from public life, please gently and patiently remind them that God (in general) and the Christian faith (specifically) is responsible for the enjoyment of the liberties we currently have in the United States of America. That is a fact, at least according to the people who set up this system of government in the first place.

Image retrieved from:http://www.ducksters.com/history/colonial_america/thirteen_colonies.php

Tags: 13 Colonies

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.arky.org/Constitution/IOTC/Lecture-11_1.doc

THE PRINCIPLE APPROACH TO EDUCATION –

THE PRINCIPLE APPROACH TO EDUCATION –

RESTORING AMERICA THROUGH A RETURN TO

 

In June 2010, the Institute on the Constitution (IOTC) in Pasadena, Maryland contacted me, saying, "You are graduating more people from these classes in southwest Ohio than anywhere else in the nation. What are you doing?" I told them that while John Eidsmoe was teaching students about the Constitution, I was teaching them how to use the Constitution.

 

As part of the IOTC curriculum, I was incorporating a system of learning known as the Principle Approach, the method of education used by our Founding Fathers.  This enables the students to begin to think and reason for themselves from a biblical worldview. Unlike our current education system that teaches students what to think, the Principle Approach uses definitions from Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary, seven biblical principles and leading questions to help students search out the truth in any subject. This approach will be laid out in more detail in the pages following.  For the IOTC classes, we used applications that relate to government and history.

 

The Principle Approach method is known as the “Four R’S” – 

• Research - using the Bible, Webster's 1828 Dictionary and other primary sources, such as the founders’ original writings, so as to better define terms.

• Reason - using leading questions to identify truth or former misconceptions.

• Relate - relating this truth to history, a current event or any subject before us.

• Record - write it down or use it; i.e. contacting Congressman or speaking to others with Constitutional or principled arguments rather than opinions.

 

The Principle Approach was accidently endorsed by the Nehemiah Institute, a Christian research organization formed in the 1980s for the purpose of returning Americans to a biblical way of thinking. To that end they created the PEERS test, not an academic exam, but rather a diagnostic tool to identify and measure the students’ worldview in the areas of Politics, Economics, Education, Religion, and Social issues.

 

They expected to be able to dramatically demonstrate the difference in worldviews between Christians in the public schools versus Christians in Christian schools. What they learned instead was jolting: The results showed that while the Christian school students slightly surpassed the public schools in their proximity to a biblical worldview, there was one group of schools that was far superior to the average Christian school in its ability to develop a scriptural perspective on everything. Upon further investigation, they learned these outstanding schools were using a method called the Principle Approach, a name they had never heard before.

 

The data from the PEERS test was both enlightening and intriguing. While both the public and Christian school students’ biblical worldview was steadily plummeting through the years further into secular humanism and socialism, the Principle Approach students were growing stronger in their biblical worldview. The PEERS Trend Chart shows both of these stark developments very clearly.  

 

Reading the PEERS Trend Chart (file located on this CD – “03-Intro-PEERS Test Results.pdf”)

Looking at the yellow box on the top right entitled, "PEERS Worldview Scale," one can see the correlation between the test scores and the various worldviews. Scores over 70 represent a biblical worldview, with scores below that identified in decreasing order as a moderate Christian, a secular humanism or a socialism worldview.

 

The Principle Approach schools, marked in green, consistently scored not only above the other schools, but grew in their understanding of a biblical worldview through the years. Conversely, both the public and traditional Christian schools declined in their understanding of a biblical worldview as the years passed. Perhaps the most alarming of all is that the traditional Christian school results were lower in 2002 than the public schools were in 1988. 

 

Sample Test Statements

To better understand this data, below is the scoring method, along with a sampling of statements from the PEERS test with which students are to rate their level of agreement or disagreement:

• The concept of family, traditionally understood as a father, mother, and children, needs to be redefined to include other types of committed relationships.

• Because human nature is constantly changing, values and ethics will also change. Therefore, each generation should be free to adopt moral standards appropriate to their preferences.

• A primary function of civil government is to enact educational and social programs designed to prevent overpopulation of its land.

​

Christian​Secular

Conservative​Liberal

​Possible Answers​Statement​Statement

 

​Strongly agree​    +5​     -5

​Tend to agree​    +3 ​     -3

​Neutral​      0​      0

​Tend to disagree​     -3​    +3

​Strongly disagree​     -5​    +5

 

Conclusion

The evidence is both clear and alarming: Public and traditional Christian schools are failing to create a biblical worldview in their students. The other evidence is equally clear, but inspirational: The Principle Approach schools are building citizens who can  increasingly think and reason from a biblical perspective, an absolutely essential element in restoring America to its biblical foundations of limited, constitutional government.

 

How the Principle Approach Works

The Principle Approach is the form of teaching and learning our Founding Fathers adhered to and taught. It was this process of learning that led to the very documents and form of government that we are studying.  It is a life long learning method that is slowly re-emerging in the educational arena. Because of the depth of it, there is neither time nor space here to teach the approach in its entirety; however a short example is set out below. (In the materials I have put in this manual, there are specific examples of how to incorporate this approach to both learning and application.)

 

Webster's 1828 Dictionary   

Noah Webster was a master of 27 languages and dedicated years of his life to compiling the first American dictionary. His mastery of language and strong Christian underpinnings are two main reasons for using this specific dictionary, but the third and greatest reason is to overcome modern revisionist definitions. Words and their meaning matter!  The following example will dramatically demonstrate this phenomenon:

 

right - conformity to standards or prevailing conditions. (Harcourt Brace Dictionary, 1968)

 

right - according to the will of God (Webster's 1828 Dictionary)

 

The modern dictionary declares that right is determined by the circumstances in which we find ourselves. No absolute standard.  Webster's 1828 sets forth an absolute truth.

 

Seven Biblical Principles

1. God’s Sovereignty

2. Man’s Individuality

3. Government [self – family – church – civil]

4. Property or Stewardship

5. Christian Character

6. Sowing and Reaping or Education

7. Unity and Union or Covenant

 

Leading Questions

The purpose of leading ideas or questions is to guide the student to the Biblical or Constitutional root of any issue, policy or law. Using the Four R’s (Research – Reason – Relate – Record) to answer these questions, students are taken through a process of thinking that teaches them a biblical worldview. 

 

Sample leading questions are:

• What is the foundation of all Law?

• What is the purpose of law?

• Does this policy, action, law or idea fit the criteria, or adhere to the principles and tenets of law and/or our U. S. Constitution?

 

Answers to these basic research questions are built upon by asking more leading questions to teach the student biblical reasoning, and ultimately relating that reasoning to the question before them. For example, let's use the 4 R’s on the following statement:

 

The Supreme Court decision of Roe vs Wade made abortion the law of the land, legal in all 50 states.

 

Research - 

Leading Question -  What is the foundation of all Law?

[Answer] - The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God  

[Source] - Declaration of Independence, U. S. Constitution, & Webster's 1828 Dictionary

 

Next Leading Question - What are the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God?

[Answer] - The Laws of Nature's God -  the moral law…contained in the …10 commandments written by the finger of God.

[Source] – Webster’s 1828 Dictionary 

 

[Next Answer] - The Law of Nature – A rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator, and existing prior to any positive [written] precept. Thus, it is a law of nature that one man should not injure another, and murder and fraud would be crimes, independent of any [written] prohibition from the supreme power.

[Source] - Webster’s 1828 Dictionary 

 

Reason - 
In other words, the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God come from God and the Bible. The first is written, the other is intuitively and instinctively known to man, written in his heart by God, his Creator.  Both are derived from the principle of God's Sovereignty as the Supreme Ruler of the universe.  

 

Relate – 

Leading Question - Can abortion, the taking of an innocent life (murder), be legalized by a court decision?

 

Record –

[Answer] - Clearly and simply – no!  In order for man’s law to be valid, it must conform to God's law.   The Supreme Court (man) does not have the authority to overrule the Supreme Being (God's) law.  In addition, the Constitution declares only Congress has the authority to make law ( Article I, Section 1), not the courts, and this Congressional law must still conform to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” to be legitimate.

 

 

For more information, go online to www.principleapproach.org or call the Foundation for American Christian Education (F.A.C.E.) at 800-352-3223.   Or, if interested in a 90-minute demonstration of the Principle Approach in action, call Ricki Pepin at 937-322-3149 or e-mail – ricki@pepin.com

Lecture Eleven: Email Article #1​ Page 1 of 4

 

Sent from my iPhone