Sermon Archives Page

by James Jester

As viewed from Biblical Law 

The Constitution of the United States has long been regarded as the document that protects our God-given Rights. It is a well-known fact of history that the Constitution would not have been ratified by the states without some protection of these Rights. The result was the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The people reasoned, what good is a Constitution without some guarantee? They had just fought a tyrannical government and did not want their new centralized government to become too powerful. As the actor, Mel Gibson, asked in his movie, The Patriot, “What difference does it make if we have one tyrant a thousand miles away, or a thousand tyrants one mile away?”

The Preamble introduces the Constitution as a Trust, with the words, “to Ourselves and our Posterity.” It was designed for no one else. Many

Founders knew that the new Constitution would only work for Godly men and understood that if the ungodly came to power nothing would stop them.“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”Evidently, John Adams (and others) knew something that most today do not. Were they aware that this document had loopholes in it? Are our God-given Rights really guaranteed? Can the Constitution contradict and violate these Rights? Could it be that immoral and irreligious people now run our country? It is obvious today that very evil people do run this government for there is no limit to what they have done or can do. Neither is there any accountability or punishment found in the Constitution for evildoers. There are at least four ways that the Constitution allows the “fearful taskmaster” that George Washington warned us about.

By Ed Sommerville

There was a time in America that the one room schoolhouses were the only schools available in small towns and rural America.  Their schoolteachers were very dedicated to do the job they were chosen to do.  During the cold winter, the only heat was a wood or coal stove in the room.  She as well as her students had to find their own way to school regardless of rain or snow.  There was no such thing as a thermostat at that time so it was necessary to add wood or coal during the day.  She would have to teach all grades through 8th and prepare for the next day’s lessons.  Would you say these conditions were desirable for these young children to receive a good education in a schoolhouse that only cost a few hundred dollars?

Now a little over one hundred years later we have what it takes to get a good education.  We have built multimillion dollar schools with central heating and air conditioning and millions of dollars in school buses to take them to school in any weather, along with all the comforts imaginable.  They have state of the arts in electronics along with gymnasiums, cafeterias and some with swimming pools.

From Newsmax.com

Seeking to mobilize a global front against anti-gay violence and discrimination, Vice President Joe Biden declared Tuesday that protecting gay rights is a defining mark of a civilized nation and must trump national cultures and social traditions. 

Biden told a gathering of United States and international gay rights advocates that President Barack Obama has directed the United States diplomacy and foreign assistance promote the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender men and women around the world.

The Wake-up Herald

And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof. Romans 13:11-14

compiled by Jim Jester

Is America a country with a government, or are we a Government with a country? The initiation of President Lincoln’s War in 1861 began a drastic change in American politics. His Gettysburg Address strongly hinted at this change (See article, Lincoln’s War against the Declaration), so much so that some have called his Address a “new constitution.” Ten years later, the Act of 1871 was passed.

by Pastor Don Elmore

July 20, 2014

Scripture Reading: Judges 7:24, 25

This scripture reading tells of the victory that Israel had over the Midianites when they slew the two princes of that nation.  Remember that God had told Gideon 32,000 troops that Israel had, they would vaunt themselves against their God, saying, “Mine own hand hath saved me” (Judges 7:2).  So God instructed Gideon to eliminate 31,700 of the 32,000 troops:  Israel only had 300 soldiers left to fight the battle against the Midianites and Amalekites (Judges 7:6).  That is lowering the number of Israel’s army by over 99%!

The army of Israel was cut by over 99+%.  First, all those who were afraid were let go; that was 22,000.  Then 9700 men were let go who drank from the pond by putting their mouth in the water.  This left only 300 to fight against an army of over 135,000!  It lowered the odds from 1 to 5 to around 1 to 500.The soldiers of Gideon, which included men (no women) from the tribes of Manasseh, Asher, Zebulun, Naphtali and later Ephraim pursued after the Midianites and destroyed the enemy leaders named Zebah and Zalmunna and over 135,000 soldiers of the Midianites.   He was so successful that the “men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son also; for thou hast delivered us, from the hand of Midian” (Judges 8:22).    Gideon answered:  “I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you; the LORD shall rule over you” (Judges 8:23).

Gideon dwelt in his own house for the last forty years of his life.  And he died when he was a good old age.  And it followed that after he was dead, that the children of Israel turned again, and played the harlot with Baalim, and made Baal-berith their god.

In Psalm 83, both of these nations, the Amalekites (verse 7) and Midianites (verse 9) are mentioned as being enemies of Israel.  This victory of Gideon is reflected in this Psalm when King David longed for the victory over Israel’s future enemies.  “Make their nobles like Oreb and Zeeb: yea, all the princes as Zebah, and as Zalmunna, (verse 11).”  It looked forward to a time when their adversaries would be confounded forever (verse 18).

by Jim Jester

Most Christians believe America was founded as a Christian nation and that the Constitution was a divinely inspired document. It is true that the Christian Pilgrims started governments in America; but it is not true that the Constitution formed a century and a half later was Christian. It should be remembered that our culture has been Christian from the beginning and those seeking political office knew this. Thus, would be politicians must sound like they are Christian in order to get votes. The Declaration of Independence mentions the “Creator,” “nature’s God,” the “Supreme Judge” and “Divine Providence;” all of which may sound somewhat Christian and biblical. However, they also sound masonic and universal. In contrast, the Constitution uses no such language as this. There is no mention of the God of the Bible, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the God of our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Why not, if it is divinely inspired. Clearly, the Constitution is religiously neutral at best. Does any Christian see a problem with this?

The Constitution, being neutral when it comes to religious faith, allows for all faiths and philosophies. This is contrary to God’s Law, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3). There are many other references in the Bible forbidding the toleration of other religions or heathen customs (as seen in Christmas and Easter). If Christians want to maintain a free and just society, they must follow God’s Law. Under the religiously neutral Constitution, we will continue to decline as a nation.

by Jim Jester

1. There was no formal Declaration of War made by Lincoln, for to do such would mean he had to recognize the legitimacy of the Confederate States of America. Internationally, no other state formally recognized the Confederacy although most were sympathetic to their cause. Only the Vatican recognized them. President Lincoln’s view was that the Southern states were still a part of the Union and that they were in rebellion against the legitimate government and its laws.

By Jim Jester

President Abraham Lincoln saw the “War of the Rebellion” (as he called it) as defeating rebellious civilians in order to “save the Union.” He did not recognize the Southern confederacy as its own nation, ignoring thousands of Americans’ votes to secede. By Northern definition, the conflict became known as the “Civil War.” On the other hand, President Jefferson Davis saw the conflict in terms of defending the borders of the Confederate States of America. By Southern definition, the War of 1861 was “The War for Southern Independence,” just as the united colonies had done in 1776. Later they became the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation of 1781. Historians seem to forget (or ignore) that both sides were a confederation of States, both legally and lawfully voted upon by the people of those States.

By Jim Jester

Empire

A correspondent for Macmillan’s Magazine did a thorough job investigating the war while in America. He talked with hundreds of people, from all walks of life, in the North and was convinced that slavery had nothing to do with Northern motives for war. He summarized the answers he was given with the words, “We do not claim to be carrying on a war for the blacks, but for the whites…. The object of the war is to preserve the Union…. It was for clear matter-of-fact interests.” When he tried to pin down these interests, the answers did not show any moral or legal justification for a war of aggression with the carnage that was taking place. Noble principles are rarely involved in warfare. What really were involved were trade, money, and empire building. He came to the same conclusion as many foreign correspondents did, that preserving the American empire was at stake. The Quarterly Review (London) analyzed “The American Crisis” in these words:

For the contest on the part of the North is now disguisedly for empire. The question of slavery is thrown to the winds. There is hardly any concession in its favor that the South could ask which the North would refuse, provided only that the seceding States would re-enter the Union…. Away with the pretence on the North to dignify its cause with the name of freedom to the slave!

It became clear to the majority of British writers that preserving the Union really meant preserving the empire. The thinking of the 19th century was to conquer and explore. America was building an empire across the continent, with Alaska, Canada, and Cuba on the list, and this is what Europeans saw as a very understandable reason to preserve the Union. The Athenaeum (6 May 1865), a highly respected British weekly, wrote:

Many different motives urged her [the North] to begin the work on which she lavished blood and treasure. She fought… for all those delicious dreams of national predominance in future ages, which she must relinquish as soon as the union is severed…. They saw the necessity for an undivided nation: they knew that banded together they might achieve all their promises and predictions, but that their historical pre-eminence would be sacrificed as soon as they consented to a dissolution of partnership.