—

Abortion: When Does Life Begin? – R.C. Sproul

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race? Co-authored by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop)

C. Everett Koop
13th Surgeon General of the United States
In office January 21, 1982 – October 1, 1989

Abortion: What About Those Who Demand Their Rights? – R.C. Sproul

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 1 | Abortion of the Human Race (2010)

Standing Strong Under Fire: Popular Abortion Arguments and Why They Fail

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 2 | Slaughter of the Innocents (2010)

Image<img class=”i-amphtml-blurry-placeholder” src=”data:;base64,

Edith Schaeffer with her husband, Francis Schaeffer, in 1970 in Switzerland, where they founded L’Abri, a Christian commune.

President Biden  c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. I know that you don’t agree with my pro-life views but I wanted to challenge you as a fellow Christian to re-examine your pro-choice view.

In the past I have spent most of my time looking at this issue from the spiritual side. In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthanasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close look at the truth claims of the Bible.

__________________________

I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? which can be found on You Tube. It is very valuable information for Christians to have.

Today I want to respond to your letter to me on July 9, 2021. Here it is below:

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

July 9, 2021

Mr. Everette Hatcher III

Alexander, AR

Dear Mr. Hatcher,

Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughts on abortion. Hearing from passionate individuals like me inspires me every day, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your letter

Our country faces many challenges, and the road we will travel together will be one of the most difficult in our history. Despite these tough times, I have never been more optimistic for the future of America. I believe we are better positioned than any country in the world to lead in the 21^st century not just by the example of our power but by the power of our example.

As we move forward to address the complex issues of our time, I encourage you to remain an active participant in helping write the next great chapter of the American story. We need your courage and dedication at this critical time, and we must meet this moment together as the United States of America. If we do that, I believe that our best days still lie ahead.

Sincerely

Joe Biden

___________________

I wanted to reach out to you because of some of the troubling moral issues coming out of your administration.

Over Legal Objections, Biden Moves to Reinstate Family Planning Funds for Abortion Providers

Melanie Israel  / @Melanie_Israel / May 19, 2021

The Biden administration is seeking to roll back important provisions of the Trump administration’s 2019 “Protect Life” rule. Pictured: Tens of thousands of pro-life supporters march in Washington on Jan. 22, 2016, on the anniversary of the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. (Photo: Albin Lohr-Jones/Pacific Press/LightRocket/ Getty Images)

COMMENTARY BY

Melanie Israel@Melanie_Israel

Melanie Israel is a policy analyst with the DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

The public comment period closed Monday for a rule proposed by the Biden administration that would roll back important provisions of the Trump administration’s 2019 “Protect Life” rule.

At issue in the debate is the federal Title X family planning program. The law that established the program—Title X of the Public Health Service Act (1970)—says that no funds appropriated “shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.”

The Trump administration’s Protect Life rule required that grantees maintain strict physical and financial separation between Title X activity and abortion-related activity. In other words, a grantee couldn’t conduct Title X activity in one room and perform abortion with non-Title X resources in a room down the hall.

The Protect Life rule also ensured that Title X regulations are consistent with federal conscience rights laws by not requiring grantees to refer for, or counsel women to get, abortions.

During the Trump administration, Planned Parenthood refused to comply with the terms of the rule and walked away from $60 million in Title X funds.

Now, the Biden administration has proposed a rule to reverse the Trump administration’s pro-life policies and allow Title X activity to be conducted alongside abortion activity without strict physical and financial separation.

The rule would require grantees to refer for abortions, despite sincere moral or religious objections, effectively banning otherwise qualified pro-life grantees from participating.

The Heritage Foundation has long articulated the importance of conscience rights and opposed taxpayer dollars being entangled with abortion activity.

The Protect Life rule rightly required transparency and good stewardship of federal funds while protecting fundamental rights to life and conscience.

In response to the Biden administration’s proposal to gut those important protections, Heritage submitted public comment in opposition to the rule.

An abridged and lightly edited version of that comment follows:

The Law Requires a Wall of Separation Between Title X Activity and Abortion

The Biden administration’s proposed regulation guts the 2019 requirements that Title X regulations comply with the clear, unambiguous language of the Title X statute: “None of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.”

The statute has remained unchanged for more than 50 years, and appropriations legislation that provides funding for the Title X program reiterates this requirement, most recently in the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2021, which stipulates that funds appropriated for Title X “shall not be expended on abortion.”

The 1970 conference report for the legislation establishing the Title X program explains that funds are only to be used “to support preventive family-planning services, population research, infertility services, and other related medical, informational, and educational activities.”

The conferees have adopted the language contained in section 1008, which prohibits the use of such funds for abortion, in order to make clear this intent.

The 2019 regulation, a “materially indistinguishable version” of a regulation upheld by the Supreme Court in Rust v. Sullivan (1991), recognized Congress’ clear intent. In its opinion, the Supreme Court was clear that “the legislative history demonstrates that Congress intended that Title X funds be kept separate and distinct from abortion-related activates.”

Congressional intent is clear: Abortion is not family planning, and Congress intended for there to be a clear separation between abortion and Title X activity. The 2019 regulation rightly ensured compliance with the Title X statute by requiring clear physical and financial separation of Title X activity and abortion activity.

The proposed rule wrongly eliminates that important firewall.

Importance of Conscience Protections

The Biden administration’s proposed rule opens with an acknowledgement that Congress has, on multiple occasions, enacted statutes protecting conscience rights in the context of abortion. Such laws include the Weldon Amendment, which prohibits (among other things) discrimination on the basis that a health care entity does not refer for abortions.

However, the Biden administration’s proposed rule makes no such acknowledgement or mention of such civil rights in the proposed regulatory text, which states that projects must offer pregnant clients the opportunity to be provided with information about abortion.

Furthermore, the proposed regulatory text requires that projects provide abortion referral upon request.

The proposed rule is inconsistent with long-standing federal civil rights law protecting rights of conscience. While the Biden administration is entitled to take a position on abortion, it cannot force Title X projects to communicate a message that directly contradicts and undermines their beliefs (in addition to being against the plain text of the law).

If an otherwise qualified potential grantee decides that it cannot, in good conscience, agree to provide the information about abortion outlined in the regulation, and is precluded from applying for program funding, then the Department of Health and Human Services has deliberately limited the diversity of the pool of applicants that can be awarded grants.

Every day, thousands of Americans freely choose to seek health care at high-quality clinics that are not enmeshed with the abortion industry. The proposed rule would mean that those Americans would be unable to access Title X program activity at a site that aligns with their choices and personal values.

In Conclusion

Title X of the Public Health Service Act is clear: Funds may not “be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” The Biden administration’s justification for allowing commingling of Title X programs and physical and financial resources related to abortion is woefully deficient.

Furthermore, the proposed rule contradicts long-standing civil rights law protecting rights of conscience.

The Trump administration’s 2019 Protect Life rule rightly sought to uphold what the law requires with respect to good stewardship of taxpayer dollars and freedom of conscience by preventing the government from compelling speech.

The Biden administration should not infringe upon fundamental freedoms by revising these important policies.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

John MacArthur gave a sermon in June of 2021 entitled “When Government Rewards Evil and Punishes Good” and in that sermon he makes the following points:

INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION OF ROMANS 13

GOVERNMENT CAN FORFEIT ITS AUTHORITY

THE WORLD IS THE ENEMY OF THE GOSPEL

ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY IS PROGRESSING TOWARD A GLOBAL KINGDOM UNDER THE POWER OF SATAN

ONE FALSE WORLD RELIGION IS FINAL PLAY BY SATAN

REAL PERSECUTION CAN ONLY BE DONE BY GOVERNMENT

PERSECUTION IN BOOK OF DANIEL

THE LAW IS KING AND NOT THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA

GOVERNMENT HAS BECOME PURVEYOR OF WICKEDNESS

THERE IS A PLACE FOR CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

DOES GOVERNMENT WIN?

Let me just share a portion of that sermon with you and you can watch it on You Tube:

In reality the greatest threat to this nation is the government, the government. And I want to show you how we are to understand that. Turn to Romans 13, Romans 13. Listen carefully to what the apostle Paul said: “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it doesn’t bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” The role of the government is to restrain evil; and when it functions to restrain evil, it is fulfilling its God-ordained purpose.

Please notice in verses 1 and 2 that government is from God, by God, of God. It is designed as a necessary restraint in a world of sinners. Verses 3 and 4 tell us it is not a threat to those whose behavior is good, but evil. It is those who do evil who should be afraid, not those who do good. In fact it offers praise to those who do good, and brings wrath on those who do evil. And rulers actually, according to verse 6, are servants of God, devoted to that service.

This is God’s design for government. The problem is, when government ceases to function by God’s design, it yields up its authority. The same would be true in a family. God’s design is that the father lead the family. When the father leads in a destructive and evil way, he yields up the right to exercise that God-given authority.

And by the way just as a footnote, the man who wrote that, the apostle Paul, was in violation of the government more often than any other person in the entire New Testament. And when he went to preach the gospel, he was very often thrown in jail; and ultimately he was executed by the government that he refused to obey when it no longer functioned to protect good behavior and punish evil behavior.

—

Romans 13 in Context: Three Quotes to Better Understand God and Government

Francis Schaeffer on “The Limits of Civil Obedience”

Last, in A Christian Manifesto(1981), Francis Schaeffer writes the following about Romans 13 and the limits of civil obedience.

The civil government, as all of life, stands under the Law of God. In this fallen world God has given us certain offices to protect us from the chaos which is the natural result of that fallenness. But when any office commands that which is contrary to the Word of God, those who hold that office abrogate their authority and they are not to be obeyed. And that includes the state.

Schaeffer cites Romans 13:1–4 and continues,

God has ordained the state as delegated authority; it is not autonomous. The state is to be an agent of justice by punishing the wrongdoer, and to protect the good in society. When it does the reverse, it has no proper authority. It is then a usurped authority and as such it becomes lawless and is tyranny.

In 1 Peter 2:13-17 we read:

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

Peter says here that civil authority is to be honored and that God is to be feared. The state, as he defines it, is to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right. If this is not so, then the whole structure falls apart. Clearly, the state is to be a ministry of justice. This is the legitimate function of the state, and in this structure Christians are to obey the state as a matter of “‘conscience” (Romans 13:5).

But what is to be done when the state does that which violates its legitimate function? The early Christians died because they would not obey the state in a civil matter. People often say to us that the early church did not show any civil disobedience. They do not know church history. Why were the Christians in the Roman Empire thrown to the lions? From the Christian’s viewpoint it was for a religious reason. But from the viewpoint of the Roman State they were in civil disobedience, they were civil rebels.

The Roman State did not care what anybody believed religiously; you could believe anything, or you could be an atheist. But you had to worship Caesar as a sign of your loyalty to the state. The Christians said they would not worship Caesar, anybody, or anything, but the living God. Thus to the Roman Empire they were rebels, and it was civil disobedience. That is why they were thrown to the lions. . . .

The bottom line is that at a certain point there is not only the right, but the duty, to disobey the state. (A Christian Manifesto, in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, 5:468–69)

Proving this point from Church history (pp. 469–73), Schaeffer lists examples of Christian resistance from the Reformation in countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, Geneva, Scotland, Hungary, France, Spain, and Scotland again. Focusing his attention on Samuel Rutherford, and his work of Protestant political resistance, Lex, Rex (trans. The Law and the Prince), Schaeffer concludes with Rutherford’s reading of Romans 13. He writes,

Romans 13 indicates that all power is from God and that government is ordained and instituted by God. The state, however, is to be administered according to the principles of God‘s Law. Acts of the state which contradicted God‘s Law were illegitimate and acts of tyranny. Tyranny was defined as ruling without the sanction of God. (473–74)

Moving from this definition of tyranny, Schaeffer explains how, according to Rutherford, “tyrannical government is always immortal,” and thus Christians must always be on guard. Summarizing Rutherford, Schaeffer gives incisive instruction for what Romans 13 means in the context of wicked rulers.

First, since tyranny is satanic, not to resist it is to resist God—to resist tyranny is to honor God. Second, since the ruler is granted power conditionally, it follows that the people have the power to withdraw their sanction if the proper conditions are not fulfilled. The civil magistrate is a “fiduciary figure’”—that is, he holds his authority in trust for the people. Violation of the trust gives the people a legitimate base for resistance.

It follows from Rutherford’s thesis that citizens have a moral obligation to resist unjust and tyrannical government. While we must always be subject to the office of the magistrate, we are not to be subject to the man in that office who commands that which is contrary to the Bible. . . . A ruler, he wrote, should not be deposed merely because he commits a single breach of the compact he has with the people. Only when the magistrate acts in such a way that the governing structure of the country is being destroyed—that is, when he is attacking the fundamental structure of society—is he to be relieved of his power and authority. (474, emphasis mine)

This is a crucial distinction and one that we will consider as we conclude this blogpost.

Obedience Always and Sometimes Resistance

As Schaeffer notes, we must not charge rulers of tyranny when they do things we don’t like or when they commit a single breach of trust, Rather, resistance to tyrants applies when the governing authorities are destroying the fabric of society itself in a serially and ongoing way. In his final estimation, Schaeffer believed this was already happening in America in 1981.

For us today, we need to keep our eyes open to what is happening in our country, our states, and local municipalities. The above quotations help us to see what Romans 13 means and how it calls for submission to governing authorities and measured resistance which obeys Romans 12:21: “Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good.” This certainly applies to interpersonal relations, but it also applies to our interaction with the state.

As Schreiner, Sunshine, and Schaeffer remind us, when governing authorities act wickedly, Christians should respond in prayer, petition, and political action to oppose those who legislate evil and oppose good. The reason for this is not because Christians are trying to establish Christ’s kingdom in this fallen world. Instead, it is because in this fallen world, disciples of Christ believe Christ has authority over all things, including government, and because governments that honor God’s definition of good and evil are the best places for the gospel and churches to go forward. In this way, political engagement is not a “gospel issue.” The gospel will go forward with or without government support. But in places where freedom of religion is practiced, individuals are in the best place to receive the gospel—without coercion or fear.

Again, Romans 13 positively teaches that submission is our basic posture to governing authorities, but it is not, and has never been, the only posture of faithful Christians. Wise Christians know this and they also know that Romans 13 does not deny political resistance. Instead, Paul’s words call us to bless our neighbors with our presence, and to count the cost in moments when in obedience to God we stand up to tyrants.

For more on the subject of political resistance, read Sunshine’s book. You can also get a taste of how Romans 13 informs us today in my Sunday sermon. In all, we need to be aware of how governing authorities are (mis)using their powers today and why Christians should care about that and how Scripture teaches us to respond.

Scripture is not silent on matters of God and Government. And faithful disciples will grow up in Christ as they let the whole counsel of Scripture inform their views of the world, including all matters pertaining to government.

Soli Deo Gloria, ds

Photo by Ruben Ramirez on Unsplash

Related posts:

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

—

Abortion: When Does Life Begin? – R.C. Sproul

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race? Co-authored by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop)

C. Everett Koop
13th Surgeon General of the United States
In office January 21, 1982 – October 1, 1989

Abortion: What About Those Who Demand Their Rights? – R.C. Sproul

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 1 | Abortion of the Human Race (2010)

Standing Strong Under Fire: Popular Abortion Arguments and Why They Fail

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 2 | Slaughter of the Innocents (2010)

Image<img class=”i-amphtml-blurry-placeholder” src=”data:;base64,

Edith Schaeffer with her husband, Francis Schaeffer, in 1970 in Switzerland, where they founded L’Abri, a Christian commune.

September 10, 2021

President Biden  c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. I know that you don’t agree with my pro-life views but I wanted to challenge you as a fellow Christian to re-examine your pro-choice view.

In the past I have spent most of my time looking at this issue from the spiritual side. In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthanasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close look at the truth claims of the Bible.

__________________________

I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? which can be found on You Tube. It is very valuable information for Christians to have.

Today I want to respond to your letter to me on July 9, 2021. Here it is below:

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

July 9, 2021

Mr. Everette Hatcher III

Alexander, AR

Dear Mr. Hatcher,

Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughts on abortion. Hearing from passionate individuals like me inspires me every day, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your letter

Our country faces many challenges, and the road we will travel together will be one of the most difficult in our history. Despite these tough times, I have never been more optimistic for the future of America. I believe we are better positioned than any country in the world to lead in the 21^st century not just by the example of our power but by the power of our example.

As we move forward to address the complex issues of our time, I encourage you to remain an active participant in helping write the next great chapter of the American story. We need your courage and dedication at this critical time, and we must meet this moment together as the United States of America. If we do that, I believe that our best days still lie ahead.

Sincerely

Joe Biden

__________________

PRESIDENT BIDEN YOU NEED TO REALIZE THE BIBLE IS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE AND CAN BE TRUSTED AND SHOULD BE THE BASIS FOR OUR MORALS IN THIS COUNTRY LIKE THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED! Today your administration seems to believe that killing unborn babies is okay! What do you think the founders would have said about that!

John MacArthur gave a sermon in June of 2021 entitled “When Government Rewards Evil and Punishes Good” and in that sermon he makes the following points:

INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION OF ROMANS 13

GOVERNMENT CAN FORFEIT ITS AUTHORITY

THE WORLD IS THE ENEMY OF THE GOSPEL

ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY IS PROGRESSING TOWARD A GLOBAL KINGDOM UNDER THE POWER OF SATAN

ONE FALSE WORLD RELIGION IS FINAL PLAY BY SATAN

REAL PERSECUTION CAN ONLY BE DONE BY GOVERNMENT

PERSECUTION IN BOOK OF DANIEL

THE LAW IS KING AND NOT THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA

GOVERNMENT HAS BECOME PURVEYOR OF WICKEDNESS

THERE IS A PLACE FOR CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

DOES GOVERNMENT WIN?

Recently I read the story below about targeting of the TEA PARTY conservative groups by the IRS from Obama administration:

Judge gives preliminary OK to $3.5M settlement of IRS case

The 2013 lawsuit during the Barack Obama administration was over treatment of conservative groups who said they were singled out for extra IRS scrutiny on tax-exempt status applications.

“These are groups of law-abiding citizens who should have never had their First Amendment rights infringed upon by the IRS,” Jenny Beth Martin, president of the Tea Party Patriots umbrella group, said Wednesday. “These are groups that want the government to be accountable.”

The government has been used to persecuting people they don’t like for centuries! Let me just share a portion of that sermon by John MacArthur with you and you can watch it on You Tube:

PERSECUTION IN BOOK OF DANIEL

I want to show you another illustration of this in Daniel, in Daniel chapter 2. Daniel, though he is a Jew in exile in Babylon along with all the Jews that were taken there, God has elevated him because he interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. At the end of chapter 2, verse 46, “King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, did homage to Daniel, gave orders to present to him an offering and fragrant incense. The king answered Daniel and said, ‘Surely your God is a God of gods and a Lord of [lords] and a revealer of mysteries, since you have been able to reveal this mystery.’ Then the king promoted Daniel and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon. And Daniel made request of the king, and appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego over the administration of the province of Babylon, while Daniel was at the king’s court.” You know for a while Nebuchadnezzar liked Daniel a lot because all his own fools, disguised as wise men, couldn’t answer any of his dilemmas. But he sounds like—almost like a believer here. Verse 47, “Your God is a God of gods and a Lord of [lords].”

Some time passed, probably some years. Chapter 3 gives us a different picture. Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten, apparently, about the declaration that the God of Daniel was the God of gods, and he “made an image of gold, the height of which was sixty cubits”—that would be ninety feet—the “width six cubits”—that would be nine feet—“and he set it on the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon. Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent word to assemble the satraps, the prefects, the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the judges, the magistrates, all the rulers of the provinces to come to the dedication of the image Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.” And by the way it was an image of him.

Then they all came. In verse 4, “The herald loudly proclaimed: ‘To you the command is given, O people, nation and men of every language, that at the moment you hear the sound of the horn, the flute, the lyre, the trigon’”—another musical instrument, stringed instrument—“‘psaltery, bagpipe and all kinds of music, . . . fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king has set up. Whoever doesn’t fall down and worship shall immediately be cast into the midst of a furnace of blazing fire.’” So now Nebuchadnezzar has set himself up as god, and anybody who defies that is going to die.

So some of the “Chaldeans,” in verse 8, “came . . . and brought charges against the Jews.” They came, in verse 9, and they said to Nebuchadnezzar, “‘O king, live forever! You, O king, made a decree that every man’” should bow when they hear the music, “‘fall down and worship the golden image. And whoever doesn’t fall down and worship shall be cast into the midst of a furnace of blazing fire. There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the administration of the province of Babylon, namely Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego. These men, O king, have disregarded you; they do not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set up.’

“Then Nebuchadnezzar in rage and anger gave orders to bring Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego; then these men were brought before the king. . . . ‘Is it true,’” he says, “‘that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image that I set up?’” Verse 16, they replied, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” This is civil disobedience: “We’re not worshiping your god; we’re not worshiping you. If it is to be the fire, let it be the fire.” Nebuchadnezzar was so infuriated by this that “his facial expression was altered,” and he gave “orders to heat the furnace seven times more.”

Well you know the rest of the story, right? Threw them in the furnace. In verse 25, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!” And again in verse 28, Nebuchadnezzar says, “‘Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, who has sent His angel and delivered His servants who put their trust in Him, violating the king’s command, and yielding up their bodies so as not to serve or worship any god except their own God. Therefore I make a decree that any people, nation or tongue that speaks anything offensive against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego shall be torn limb from limb and their houses reduced to a rubbish heap, inasmuch as there is no other god who is able to deliver in this way.’ Then the king caused Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego to prosper in the province of Babylon.” This is getting to be a little bit repetitious—but he bounces back again. When it serves them well, government may tolerate the people of God; but when they are angry, they have the power of death in their hands.

Chapter 4 is incredible. It’s one of the great conversion stories in the Bible. It’s the conversion of Nebuchadnezzar, and it’s a first-person story. “Nebuchadnezzar the king to all the peoples, nations, and men of every language that live in all the earth: ‘May your peace abound! It has seemed good to me to declare the signs and wonders which the Most High God has done for me. How great are His signs and how mighty are His wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and His dominion is from generation to generation.” He was hard to convince, but there’s a change in his attitude.

Then he gives his testimony; I won’t go through all of it. It’s an amazing testimony. He has a dream, he can’t figure out the meaning of the dream, Daniel tells him the meaning of the dream in verses 19 through 27. The dream is about him being cut down. It’s a dream of a tree; it’s him—he’s going to be cut down, chopped down, nothing left but a small stump. Why? Well because he needs to learn, verse 25, “that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes.”

So Daniel interprets the dream, and then in verse 27 says, “Let me give you some advice, O king”: “Break away now from your sins by doing righteousness and from your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, in case there may be a prolonging of your prosperity.” Here’s another opportunity for this guy to say what he says and actually believe it. All this happened to the king. This is the interpretation of the dream.

Verse 29, “twelve months later,” he’s forgotten it again. And he thinks he’s God, and he’s reflecting on it: “Is not this Babylon”—verse 30—“the great, which I myself have built as a royal residence by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?” It’s a soliloquy on his majesty. “While the word was in the king’s mouth, a voice came from heaven, saying, ‘King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is declared: sovereignty has been removed from you. You’ll be driven away from mankind, your dwelling place will be with the beasts of the field. You’ll be given grass to eat like cattle, and seven [years, literally] will pass over until you recognize the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes.’ Immediately the word concerning Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled; he was driven away from mankind, began eating grass like cattle, his body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair had grown like eagles’ feathers and nails like birds’ claws.” For seven years. That is humbling.

“At the end of the period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever; for His dominion is an everlasting dominion, His kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing; He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, “What have You done?” At that time my reason returned to me. And my majesty and splendor were restored to me for the glory of my kingdom, and my counselors and my nobles began seeking me out; so I was reestablished in my sovereignty, and surpassing greatness was added to me. Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt and honor the King of heaven, for all His works are true and His ways just, and He’s able to humble those who walk in pride’”—yeah, he learned that. I think you’re going to see him in heaven. It’s a real conversion story.

—

The Book of Daniel is one of the most amazing prophetic books in the Bible and it predicts the coming of 4 world dominating powers starting with Babylon and ending with the Roman and critics have attacked the 6th century B.C authorship (around 530 B.C.) and have tried to push it as late as 160 B.C. When Rome came on the scene.

One of the pieces of evidence used for late authorship is the term “Chaldeans.” Jeffrey argues: “The use of the word kasdim (Chaldeans), not in the proper ethnic sense which it has, for example, in Jeremiah, but to mean a caste of wise men, points to a time when the word was commonly used for a class of priestly astrologers, diviners, or magicians, a sense the word has in the pages of Strabo or Diodorus Siculus, who wrote in the first century B.C. (p. 349).

Dr. Samuel Driver (1846-1914) agrees that the argument concerning the use of the term “Chaldeans” is very convincing. So much that he places it first in the list of his three strongest arguments that show that the book of Daniel was composed in Palestine “during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes” (pp. 47-56 of the Introduction).

How strong is this argument? On page 12 of Driver’s commentary, Driver himself takes exceptions to some of the assertions made by Jeffrey. Driver admits that in Daniel 5:30, and 9:1 the author of the book of Daniel did use the ethnic sense of the word “Chaldeans.” Then on the same page Driver admits this term “Chaldeans” is found “in Herodotus (Herodotus, Histories, 1.181-183, c. 440 B.C.), and is common afterwards in the classical writers” (p. 12). Furthermore, Driver also admits that evidence indicates that such a group of wise men as pictured in the book of Daniel did exist as a group as early as 2000 B.C. (p. 14).

Francis Schaeffer summarized Driver’s argument: “Remember this is his first strong argument. he is going to take the book of Daniel and throw away its historical date on the basis of these `so-called’ strong arguments. Now we have defined this question in regard to the term “Chaldeans.” The writer knew the ethnic sense. This group did exist from a long time before. About 90 years later everybody acknowledges that the word was used in this sense to the wise men. And so he is going to throw away the book of Daniel and its dating and all that it means on the basis that this specific group of wise men, who were well known from long before and afterwards, were not called this term in this 90-year span (530 B.C. to 440 B.C.). Now, once you word it this way, it doesn’t look so strong” (Francis Schaeffer’s five part series, Dr. Driver’s Criticism of the Book of Daniel, tape #2).

Is it any wonder that the bible critic J.J. Collins admits that the author’s use of the term “Chaldeans” cannot be used to date his material (Daniel, Hermeneia, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994, pp. 137-138). In fact, Jeffrey makes a similar error in his commentary on Daniel 10:1. He states: “Cyrus is here called `king of Persia.’ This may be merely a statement of fact, for he was king of Persia, but if it is meant as an official title, it is an anachronism in the mouth of Daniel. The title ‘king of Persia’, was Hellenistic usage and not the usage of the Achaemenid kings at this time” (p. 500).

Jeffrey overlooked the fact that Robert Dick Wilson contradicted this view expressly with what he found in the tablets of the Persian period (Robert Dick Wilson, “The Title `King of Persia’ in the Scriptures,” The Princeton Theological Review, Vol. 15, 1917, pp. 90-145). Wilson commented: “It is evident therefore, that there are thirty-eight distinct extra-biblical instances of the use of this title from 545 to about 400 B.C.; and that these instances are found in twenty different works by nineteen different persons (p. 100).”

This argument of Jeffrey’s is completely put to flight concerning Daniel 10:1. It shows how much many of these scholars continue to repeat the same old arguments. No doubt, Jeffrey had read this argument in Driver’s commentary (p. 152), but he had failed to read the refutation provided by Wilson seventeen years later.

Adrian Rogers noted the Bible is affirmed through historical accuracy. Do you remember the story about the handwriting on the wall that is found in the fifth chapter of Daniel? Belshazzar hosted a feast with a thousand of his lords and ladies. Suddenly, a gruesome hand appeared out of nowhere and began to write on a wall. The king was disturbed and asked for someone to interpret the writing. Daniel was found and gave the interpretation. After the interpretation, “Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.” (Daniel 5:29).
Basing their opinion on Babylonian records, the historians claim this never happened. According to the records, the last king of Babylon was not Belshazzar, but a man named Nabonidas. And so, they said, the Bible is in error. There wasn’t a record of a king named Belshazzar. Well, the spades of archeologists continued to do their work. In 1853, an inscription was found on a cornerstone of a temple built by Nabonidas, to the god Ur, which read: “May I, Nabonidas, king of Babylon, not sin against thee. And may reverence for thee dwell in the heart of Belshazzar, my first-born favorite son.”
From other inscriptions, it was learned that Belshazzar and Nabonidas were co-regents. Nabonidas traveled while Belshazzar stayed home to run the kingdom. Now that we know that Belshazzar and Nabonidas were co-regents, it makes sense that Belshazzar would say that Daniel would be the third ruler. What a marvelous nugget of truth tucked away in the Word of God!

PRESIDENT BIDEN YOU NEED TO REALIZE THE BIBLE IS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE AND CAN BE TRUSTED AND SHOULD BE THE BASIS FOR OUR MORALS IN THIS COUNTRY LIKE THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED! Today your administration seems to believe that killing unborn babies is okay! What do you think the founders would have said about that!

—

Related posts:

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

—

Abortion: When Does Life Begin? – R.C. Sproul

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race? Co-authored by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop)

C. Everett Koop
13th Surgeon General of the United States
In office January 21, 1982 – October 1, 1989

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 1 | Abortion of the Human Race (2010)

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 2 | Slaughter of the Innocents (2010)

Image<img class=”i-amphtml-blurry-placeholder” src=”data:;base64,

Edith Schaeffer with her husband, Francis Schaeffer, in 1970 in Switzerland, where they founded L’Abri, a Christian commune.

September 8, 2021

President Biden  c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. I know that you don’t agree with my pro-life views but I wanted to challenge you as a fellow Christian to re-examine your pro-choice view.

In the past I have spent most of my time looking at this issue from the spiritual side. In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthanasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close look at the truth claims of the Bible.

__________________________

I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? which can be found on You Tube. It is very valuable information for Christians to have.

Today I want to respond to your letter to me on July 9, 2021. Here it is below:

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

July 9, 2021

Mr. Everette Hatcher III

Alexander, AR

Dear Mr. Hatcher,

Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughts on abortion. Hearing from passionate individuals like me inspires me every day, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your letter

Our country faces many challenges, and the road we will travel together will be one of the most difficult in our history. Despite these tough times, I have never been more optimistic for the future of America. I believe we are better positioned than any country in the world to lead in the 21^st century not just by the example of our power but by the power of our example.

As we move forward to address the complex issues of our time, I encourage you to remain an active participant in helping write the next great chapter of the American story. We need your courage and dedication at this critical time, and we must meet this moment together as the United States of America. If we do that, I believe that our best days still lie ahead.

Sincerely

Joe Biden

___________________

I wanted to reach out to you because of some of the troubling moral issues coming out of your administration.

John MacArthur gave a sermon in June of 2021 entitled “When Government Rewards Evil and Punishes Good” and in that sermon he makes the following points:

INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION OF ROMANS 13

GOVERNMENT CAN FORFEIT ITS AUTHORITY

THE WORLD IS THE ENEMY OF THE GOSPEL

ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY IS PROGRESSING TOWARD A GLOBAL KINGDOM UNDER THE POWER OF SATAN

ONE FALSE WORLD RELIGION IS FINAL PLAY BY SATAN

REAL PERSECUTION CAN ONLY BE DONE BY GOVERNMENT

PERSECUTION IN BOOK OF DANIEL

THE LAW IS KING AND NOT THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA

GOVERNMENT HAS BECOME PURVEYOR OF WICKEDNESS

THERE IS A PLACE FOR CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

DOES GOVERNMENT WIN?

Let me just share a portion of that sermon with you and you can watch it on You Tube:

THE LAW IS KING AND NOT THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA

The point that I want to make out of this is it’s always in the power of monarchs to do damage to the people of God, always. That is why Proverbs 16:12 says, “It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness,” because it turns everything upside-down. Only in righteousness is a throne established.

Look, in Acts chapter 4, the Jewish leaders said to the apostles, “Stop preaching!” In Daniel 3, Nebuchadnezzar said, “Stop worshiping!” Again, in Daniel 6—we didn’t read it—the rulers said, “Stop praying, or we’re going to throw you into”—what?—“the lions’ den.” The governor of California says, “Stop singing! Stop hugging!” But God’s people don’t stop because no—listen to me—no human authority is absolute. No human authority is absolute. I’ll say it again: No human authority is absolute. All human authorities are only authorities as long as they function in the way God designed them; and when they don’t function that way anymore, but they turn it on its head and do it in the reverse form, they yield up that God-given authority. Obviously the fallout is horrendous.

I love this little paragraph by Doug Wilson talking about Peter. He said, “The man who [told us to submit to the government] was soon to be executed by the magistrate as someone who was a grave threat to the civil order. This [is] the same man who was broken out of jail by an angel, . . . who disappeared from the book of Acts as a wanted man. The guards who lost him were executed because of his disappearance. This was the man who was in jail in the first place because he was a leader of Christians, and who earlier had told the Sanhedrin that he [would not] quit preaching, no matter what they said. And he was the man who was writing this letter to prepare law-abiding Christians for the time of persecution that was coming, in which time they would be accused of being [rebellious]. So whatever his words in chapter 2 mean, they [had] to be consistent with the life of the [man] who wrote them.” You submit when the government functions in the way God designed it.

So we are beginning to see persecution from government. This is the most formidable persecution: COVID, LGBTQ, transgender, social justice—all these new ideologies are now going to become the only acceptable moral standards. And if you don’t accept them, you’re going to be the enemy of the government. Truth, the Bible, Scripture is going to be canceled. The government’s taking control; they want to take control of absolutely everything. The church has become the main enemy of the government—nothing new.

Some helpful insights from Tim Cantrell over in South Africa, one of our missionaries: “In July 1933, during Hitler’s first summer in power, a young German pastor named Joachim Hossenfelder preached a sermon in . . . Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church, Berlin’s most important church. He used the words of Romans 13 to remind worshippers of the importance of obedience to those in authority.” This is 1933. “The church was [all decked out] with Nazi banners . . . its pews packed with the Nazi . . . faithful [and soldiers in uniform].” Earlier that same year, Friedrich Dibelius, “a German bishop and one of the highest Protestant officials in the country” also preached on Romans 13 “to justify all the Nazi seizure[s] of power and [brutal] policies,” and misquoted Martin Luther himself about the powers of the state. “Three days” after this sermon by Dibelius, “the German parliament dissolved,” and Hitler took over. Within a few years, six million Jews had been slaughtered, and the world devastated by World War II.

Throughout history, even in the Western world, people lived under what was called the divine right of kings. Kings were believed to have had a divine right. This was absolute monarchy. What broke that was basically the Reformers. The Reformers—a little phrase was “the law is king,” not the man. Because of the myth of the divine right of kings, it became the justification for the slaughter and the massacre of countless children of God.

—

Recently I read this:

Joe Biden Leaves God Out of the National Day of Prayer

By KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZMay 10, 2021 6:30 AM

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Flipboard
• Email this article

Joe Biden Leaves God Out of the National Day of Prayer

By KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZMay 10, 2021 6:30 AM

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Flipboard
• Email this article

President Joseph Biden mentions his Catholic faith frequently. We’ve heard him cite both the pope and Saint Francis. At his inauguration, he ran through a litany of promises about love and healing and decency, and other things no one could object to, prefaced by, “Before God and all of you, I give you my word.” But when it came time for his first proclamation for a National Day of Prayer, his administration chose to leave God out of it.

—

Take a look below in these words by Francis Schaeffer concerning our founding fathers and their view of how God should be in a center place in our nation!

John MacArthur’s statement The Reformers—a little phrase was “the law is king,” not the man is also referred to in this in the book CHRISTIAN MANIFESTO by Francis Schaeffer.

Francis Schaeffer noted:

Chapter 2 FOUNDATIONS FOR FAITH AND FREEDOM

Excerpted from

A Christian Manifesto

by Francis A. Schaeffer

 *

John Trumbull’s Declaration of Independence

The Founding Fathers of the United States (in varying degrees) understood very well the relationship between one’s world view and government. John Witherspoon (1723-1794) has always been important to me personally, and he is even more so since I have read just recently a biography of him by David Walker Woods. John Witherspoon, a Presbyterian minister and president of what is now Princeton University, was the only pastor to sign the Declaration of Inde­pendence. He was a very important man during the founding of the country. He linked the Christian thinking represented by the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) with the work he did both on the Declaration of Independence and on countless very important committees in the founding of the country. This linkage of Christian thinking and the concepts of government were not incidental but fun­damental. John Witherspoon knew and stood con­sciously in the stream of Samuel Rutherford, a Scots­man who lived from 1600-1661 and who wrote Lex Rex in 1644. Lex rex means “law is king”—a phrase that was absolutely earthshaking. Prior to that it had been rex lex, the king is law. In Lex Rex he wrote that the law, and no one else, is king. Therefore, the heads of government are under the law, not a law unto them­selves.

[Thomas] Jefferson, who was a deist, and others, knew they stood in the stream of John Locke (1632-1704), and while Locke had secularized Lex Rex he had drawn heavily from it. These men really knew what they were doing. We are not reading back into history what was not there. We cannot say too strongly that they really understood the basis of the government which they were founding. Think of this great flaming phrase: “certain inalienable rights.” Who gives the rights? The state? Then they are not inalienable be­cause the state can change them and take them away. Where do the rights come from? They understood that they were founding the country upon the concept that goes back into the Judeo-Christian thinking that there is Someone there who gave the inalienable rights. Another phrase also stood there: “In God we trust.” With this there is no confusion of what they were talking about. They publicly recognized that law could be king because there was a Law Giver, a Person to give the inalienable rights.

The election of William Linn as first Chaplain of the House on May 1, 1789, continued the tradition established by the Second Continental Congress of each day’s proceedings opening with a prayer by a chaplain.

Most people do not realize that there was a paid chaplain in Congress even before the Revolutionary War ended. Also we find that prior to the founding of the national congress all the early provincial con­gresses in all thirteen colonies always opened with prayer. And from the very beginning, prayer opened the national congress. These men truly understood what they were doing. They knew they were building on the Supreme Being who was the Creator, the final reality. And they knew that without that foundation everything in the Declaration of Independence and all that followed would be sheer unadulterated non­sense. These were brilliant men who understood ex­actly what was involved.

Saying grace before carving the turkey at Thanksgiving dinner in the home of Earle Landis in Neffsville, Pennsylvania. (1942)

As soon as the war was over they called the first Thanksgiving Day. Do you realize that the first Thanksgiving Day to thank God in this country was called immediately by the Congress at the end of the war? Witherspoon’s sermon on that day shows their perspective: “A republic once equally poised must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty.” Don’t you wish that everybody in America would recite that, and truly understand it, every morning? “A republic once equally poised must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty.” Earlier in a speech Witherspoon had stressed: “He is the best friend of American liberty who is most sincere and active in promoting pure and undefiled religion.” And for Witherspoon, and the cultural con­sensus of that day, that meant Christianity as it had come to them through the Reformation. This was the consensus which then gave religious freedom to all— including the “free thinkers” of that day and the hu­manists of our day.

This concept was the same as William Penn (1644-1718) had expressed earlier: “If we are not governed by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants.” This consensus was as natural as breathing in the United States at that time. We must not forget that many of those who came to America from Europe came for religious pur­poses. As they arrived, most of them established their own individual civil governments based upon the Bi­ble. It is, therefore, totally foreign to the basic nature of America at the time of the writing of the Constitu­tion to argue a separation doctrine that implies a secu­lar state.

When the First Amendment was passed it only had two purposes. The first purpose was that there would be no established, national church for the united thir­teen states. To say it another way: There would be no “Church of the United States.” James Madison (1751-1836) clearly articulated this concept of separation when explaining the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty. He said that the First Amendment to the Constitution was prompted because “the people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.”

Nevertheless, a number of the individual states had state churches, and even that was not considered in conflict with the First Amendment. At the outbreak of the American Revolution, nine of the thirteen col­onies had conferred special benefits upon one church to the exclusion of others. In all but one of the thirteen states, the states taxed the people to support the preaching of the gospel and to build churches. It was not until 1798 that the Virginia legislature repealed all its laws supporting churches. In Massa­chusetts the Massachusetts Constitution was not amended until 1853 to eliminate the tax-supported church provisions.

The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion.

Those were the two purposes of the First Amend­ment as it was written.

As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States v. Ballard case in 1944:

PAGE 434

The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only ‘forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship’ but also ‘safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.’

Today the separation of church and state in Amer­ica is used to silence the church.

When Christians speak out on issues, the hue and cry from the humanist state and media is that Christians, and all religions, are prohibited from speaking since there is a separation of church and state. The way the concept is used today is totally reversed from the original intent. It is not rooted in history. The modern concept of separation is an argument for a total separation of religion from the state. The consequence of the acceptance of this doc­trine leads to the removal of religion as an influence in civil government. This fact is well illustrated by John W. Whitehead in his book The Second American Revo­lution. It is used today as a false political dictum in order to restrict the influence of Christian ideas.

 As Franky Schaeffer V says in the Plan for Action:

“It has been convenient and expedient for the secular humanist, the materialist, the so-called liberal, the feminist, the genetic engineer, the bureaucrat, the Supreme Court Justice, to use this arbitrary division between church and state as a ready excuse. It is used, as an easily identifiable rallying point, to subdue the opinions of that vast body of citizens who represent those with religious convictions. ”

To have suggested the state separated from religion and religious influence would have amazed the Found­ing Fathers. The French Revolution that took place shortly afterwards, with its continuing excesses and final failure leading quickly to Napoleon and an authoritative rule, only emphasized the difference be­tween the base upon which the United States was founded and the base upon which the French Revolu­tion was founded. History is clear and the men of that day understood it. Terry Eastland said in Commentary Magazine:

As a matter of historical fact, the Founding Fathers be­lieved that the public interest was served by the promotion of religion. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which set aside federal property in the territory for schools and which was passed again by Congress in 1789, is instructive. “Reli­gion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good gov­ernment and the happiness of mankind,” read the act, “schools and the means of learning shall forever be encour­aged.”

Chief Justice of New York:
“We are Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity.”

In 1811 the New York state court upheld an indictment for blasphemous utterances against Christ, and in its ruling, given by Chief Justice Kent, the court said, “We are Chris­tian people, and the morality of the country is deeply en­grafted upon Christianity.” Fifty years later this same court said that “Christianity may be conceded to be the estab­lished religion.”

The Pennsylvania state court also affirmed the convic­tion of a man on charges of blasphemy, here against the Holy Scriptures. The Court said: “Christianity, general Christianity is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania . . . not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; nor Christianity with an estab­lished church and tithes and spiritual courts; but Christian­ity with liberty of conscience to all men.”

The establishment of Protestant Christianity was one not only of law but also, and far more importantly, of culture. Protestant Christianity supplied the nation with its “system of values”—to use the modern phrase—and would do so until the 1920’s when the cake of Protestant custom seemed most noticeably to begin crumbling.

—

As we continue to examine the question of law in relation to the founding of the country, we next en­counter Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780). William Blackstone was an English jurist who in the 1760s wrote a very famous work called Commentaries on the Laws of England. By the time the Declaration of Inde­pendence was signed, there were probably more copies of his Commentaries in America than in Britain.  Commentaries shaped the perspective of American law at that time, and when you read them it is very clear exactly upon what that law was based.

To William Blackstone there were only two founda­tions for law, nature and revelation, and he stated clearly that he was speaking of the “holy Scripture.” That was William Blackstone. And up to the recent past not to have been a master of William Blackstone’s Commentaries would have meant that you would not have graduated from law school.

There were other well-known lawyers who spelled these things out with total clarity. Joseph Story in his 1829 inaugural address as Dane Professor of Law at Harvard University said, “There never has been a period in which Common Law did not recognize Christianity as laying at its foundation.”

Concerning John Adams (1735-1826) Terry East­land says:

. . . most people agreed that our law was rooted, as John Adams had said, in a common moral and religious tradi­tion, one that stretched back to the time Moses went up on Mount Sinai. Similarly almost everyone agreed that our liberties were God-given and should be exercised respon­sibly. There was a distinction between liberty and license.

What we find then as we look back is that the men who founded the United States of America really understood that upon which they were building their concepts of law and the concepts of government. And until the takeover of our government and law by this other entity, the materialistic, humanistic, chance world view, these things remained the base of govern­ment and law. (PAGE 436)

Related posts:

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

—

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race? Co-authored by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop)

C. Everett Koop
13th Surgeon General of the United States
In office January 21, 1982 – October 1, 1989

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 1 | Abortion of the Human Race (2010)

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 2 | Slaughter of the Innocents (2010)

Image<img class=”i-amphtml-blurry-placeholder” src=”data:;base64,

Edith Schaeffer with her husband, Francis Schaeffer, in 1970 in Switzerland, where they founded L’Abri, a Christian commune.

September 6, 2021

President Biden  c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. I know that you don’t agree with my pro-life views but I wanted to challenge you as a fellow Christian to re-examine your pro-choice view.

In the past I have spent most of my time looking at this issue from the spiritual side. In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthanasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close look at the truth claims of the Bible.

__________________________

I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? which can be found on You Tube. It is very valuable information for Christians to have.

Today I want to respond to your letter to me on July 9, 2021. Here it is below:

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

July 9, 2021

Mr. Everette Hatcher III

Alexander, AR

Dear Mr. Hatcher,

Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughts on abortion. Hearing from passionate individuals like me inspires me every day, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your letter

Our country faces many challenges, and the road we will travel together will be one of the most difficult in our history. Despite these tough times, I have never been more optimistic for the future of America. I believe we are better positioned than any country in the world to lead in the 21^st century not just by the example of our power but by the power of our example.

As we move forward to address the complex issues of our time, I encourage you to remain an active participant in helping write the next great chapter of the American story. We need your courage and dedication at this critical time, and we must meet this moment together as the United States of America. If we do that, I believe that our best days still lie ahead.

Sincerely

Joe Biden

___________________

I especially noted this from your letter:

Our country faces many challenges, and the road we will travel together will be one of the most difficult in our history. Despite these tough times, I have never been more OPTIMISTIC for the future of America.

President Biden, you have chosen to abandon your Christianity and pursue humanist concerns!! So how can you say humanism has an OPTIMISTIC POINT OF VIew?

H. J. Blackham was the founder of the BRITISH HUMANIST ASSOCIATION and he asserted:

“On humanist assumptions, life leads to nothing, and every pretense that it does not is a deceit. If there is a bridge over a gorge which spans only half the distance and ends in mid-air, and if the bridge is crowded with human beings pressing on, one after the other they fall into the abyss. The bridge leads nowhere, and those who are pressing forward to cross it are going nowhere….It does not matter where they think they are going, what preparations for the journey they may have made, how much they may be enjoying it all. The objection merely points out objectively that such a situation is a model of futility“( H. J. Blackham, et al., Objections to Humanism (Riverside, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1967).

I wanted to reach out to because of some of the troubling moral issues coming out of your administration. I recently read this article about the Humanist group that enthusiastically supported you for President:

‘Humanists for Biden-Harris’ to mobilize nonreligious vote

The group hopes to reach atheists, agnostics and other religiously unaffiliated voters who make up the largest belief group in the Democratic Party.

Materials line a table during a gathering of atheist, humanist and secular leaders in Temecula, California, for the first SoCal Secular Leadership Summit, which was held from March 1-3, 2019. Photo courtesy Heather AdamsSeptember 28, 2020By Jack JenkinsShareTweetShare

(RNS) — A new group is launching an effort to court nonreligious voters for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, hoping to mobilize a fast-growing — and deeply liberal — community to benefit Democrats in November.

The “Humanists for Biden” group, a project of the Secular Democrats of America, unveiled its plans on Monday (Sept. 28). The group is chaired by Greg Epstein, the humanist chaplain at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“The humanist and nonreligious community is poised to be a very significant part of this presidential election in that we represent maybe 30% or so of Democratic voters,” Epstein told Religion News Service.

The group also announced a slate of co-chairs that includes Sarah Levin, who also co-chaired the Democratic National Convention’s Interfaith Council and heads Secular Strategies, an organization that mobilizes secular voters.

“Humanists for Biden marks the first time representatives of the nation’s growing number of secular Americans have been invited to participate in a coalition of communities of faith and conscience, working together on a Presidential campaign,” read a press release from the group. “The Biden-Harris campaign is working to create the most inclusive campaign and administration in the history of American politics, and we are honored to take part in this effort.”

Epstein said Humanists for Biden hopes to reach a broad swath of atheists, agnostics and other religiously unaffiliated voters who make up the largest belief group in the Democratic Party, constituting around 28% of its members, according to political scientist Ryan Burge.

While some are atheists and agnostics, other unaffiliated Americans still believe in God or pray regularly, according to a 2019 Pew Research study.

Even so, Epstein argued that the many nonreligious Americans are united by “humanistic values,” such as a belief in science as “the best tool that we have to create a healthy world,” as well as support for racial justice, pluralism and inclusion.

“We stand as humanists and people united by humanistic values for basic human decency, empathy and compassion that we feel that the Biden-Harris campaign represents far more than its competition,” he said.

Religiously unaffiliated voters, despite backing Democrats over Republicans in the 2018 midterms 75% to 22% according to Pew, have been criticized in the past for relatively low turnout on Election Day compared to other groups.

But Epstein pointed to new research that suggests religiously unaffiliated turnout is heavily impacted by the fact that it is largely made up of young voters who are also known for underperforming on Election Day.

What’s more, he said the group can only benefit from targeted mobilization, something Democrats have rarely done in the past.

“With a group like that that supports you so strongly and leans so heavily in your direction, you want to mobilize that group as much as possible,” he said.

Humanists for Biden is not officially part of the presidential campaign, but Epstein said campaign staff — including national faith outreach directors for both the Biden-Harris campaign and the Democratic Party — are slated to appear at the group’s first official event on Thursday.

“We feel supported and valued, and that has absolutely never been the case before for our community at this level,” he said, adding that Rep. Jared Huffman, a California Democrat and humanist, will also speak at their upcoming event.

The group has even selected a swing state where it can target its efforts: Arizona, where around 27% of the population is unaffiliated, according to Pew.

Epstein pointed out that Arizona is home to lawmakers such as Athena Salman, a state House member who identifies as an atheist and as a humanist. The state is also represented by Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat and the only U.S. Senator who identifies as religiously unaffiliated.

The ultimate goal of the initiative, Epstein insisted, was not only to generate “historic turnout” among secular and nonreligious Americans, but also to build a stronger coalition with religious liberals.

“We recognize that their deeply held religious values resonate strongly with our humanist values,” he said. “We simply want to be a part of the conversation. We want to be in the tent. We want to be able to fully help as equals.”

Francis Schaeffer in CHRISTIAN MANIFESTO shows how today’s secular religion of humanism is now the most influential in the world today:

CHAPTER 4 THE HUMANIST RELIGION (Page 445)

The humanists have openly told us their views of final reality. The Humanist Manifesto I (1933), page 8 says

Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any super-natural or cosmic guarantees of human values.

And Carl Sagan indoctrinated millions of unsuspecting viewers with this humanistic final view of reality in the public television show Cosmos: “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” The humanist view has infiltrated every level of society.

If we are going to join the battle in a way that has any hope of effectiveness – with Christians truly being salt and the light in our culture and our society – then we must do battle on the entire front. We must not finally even battle on the front for freedom, and specifically not only our freedom. It must be on the basis of Truth. Not just religious truths, but the Truth of what the final reality is. It is impersonal material or is it the living God?

(page 445)

The HUMANIST MANIFESTO I and II both state that humanism is a religion, a faith. [Manifesto I: pages 3 and 7; Manifesto II: pages 13 and 24.] Manifesto I, page 9, very correctly says: “Nothing human is alien to the religious.” Christians of all people should have known, taught, and acted on this. Religion touches all of thought and all of life. And these two religions, Christianity and humanism , stand over against each other as totalities.

The HUMANIST MANIFESTOS not only say that humanism is a religion, but the Supreme Court has declared it to be a religion. The 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins specifically defines secular humanism as a religion equivalent to theistic and other non theistic religions.

On page 19 the HUMANIST MANIFESTO II says: “It [the state] should not favor any particular religious bodies through the use of public monies…” Ironically, it is the humanist religion which the government and courts in the United States favor over all others!

Related posts:

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

—

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race? Co-authored by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop)

C. Everett Koop
13th Surgeon General of the United States
In office January 21, 1982 – October 1, 1989

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 1 | Abortion of the Human Race (2010)

John MacArthur on Romans 13

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 2 | Slaughter of the Innocents (2010)

Image<img class=”i-amphtml-blurry-placeholder” src=”data:;base64,

Edith Schaeffer with her husband, Francis Schaeffer, in 1970 in Switzerland, where they founded L’Abri, a Christian commune.

September 4, 2021

President Biden  c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. I know that you don’t agree with my pro-life views but I wanted to challenge you as a fellow Christian to re-examine your pro-choice view.

In the past I have spent most of my time looking at this issue from the spiritual side. In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthanasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close look at the truth claims of the Bible.

__________________________

I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? which can be found on You Tube. It is very valuable information for Christians to have.

Today I want to respond to your letter to me on July 9, 2021. Here it is below:

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

July 9, 2021

Mr. Everette Hatcher III

Alexander, AR

Dear Mr. Hatcher,

Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughts on abortion. Hearing from passionate individuals like me inspires me every day, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your letter

Our country faces many challenges, and the road we will travel together will be one of the most difficult in our history. Despite these tough times, I have never been more optimistic for the future of America. I believe we are better positioned than any country in the world to lead in the 21^st century not just by the example of our power but by the power of our example.

As we move forward to address the complex issues of our time, I encourage you to remain an active participant in helping write the next great chapter of the American story. We need your courage and dedication at this critical time, and we must meet this moment together as the United States of America. If we do that, I believe that our best days still lie ahead.

Sincerely

Joe Biden

___________________

I appreciate your words:

Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughts on abortion. Hearing from passionate individuals like me inspires me every day, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your letter.

I WONDER IF YOU REALIZE YOU HAVE ABANDONED CHRISTIANITY AND EMBRACED HUMANISM IN ORDER TO RATIONALIZE ABORTION?

—

I wanted to reach out to you because of some of the troubling moral issues coming out of your administration. Recently I readthis about your religious views:

But now, the nation’s most prominent Catholic is at odds with many of the American bishops of his church. He has been the catalyst for an explosive disagreement that had been playing out for years, over whether Communion should be granted to politicians whose public stances go against church doctrine, and on Friday they took a step toward barring Biden and others from the Eucharist.

John MacArthur gave a sermon in June of 2021 entitled “When Government Rewards Evil and Punishes Good” and in that sermon he makes the following points:

INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION OF ROMANS 13

GOVERNMENT CAN FORFEIT ITS AUTHORITY

THE WORLD IS THE ENEMY OF THE GOSPEL

ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY IS PROGRESSING TOWARD A GLOBAL KINGDOM UNDER THE POWER OF SATAN

ONE FALSE WORLD RELIGION IS FINAL PLAY BY SATAN

REAL PERSECUTION CAN ONLY BE DONE BY GOVERNMENT

PERSECUTION IN BOOK OF DANIEL

THE LAW IS KING AND NOT THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA

GOVERNMENT HAS BECOME PURVEYOR OF WICKEDNESS

THERE IS A PLACE FOR CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

DOES GOVERNMENT WIN?

Let me just share a portion of that sermon with you and you can watch it on You Tube:

THE WORLD IS THE ENEMY OF THE GOSPEL

Now I want you to understand that there’s some supernatural reasons why this is happening. They’re not political. They’re not even social in the fullest measure. If you go back to 1 John and reconnect with the passage from last week, 1 John 2:15–17, we read, “Do not love the world nor the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” Then verse 16, “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.”

The world is the enemy of God, the enemy of the triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The world is the enemy of Scripture. The world is the enemy of the gospel. The world is the enemy of the church. What do we mean by the world? Well remember last week I talked about the world as the complex of evil. The word is kosmos; it means a system. The complex of evil works against what is good.

So you have government, which is a part of the world, turned to restrain the world of which it is a part. Very hard for it to hold together because it’s all part of the same system. The complex of evil works everywhere, and the government is no exception because the very evil people given the responsibility to restrain evil are themselves incapable of being without evil. And that makes enough problems. We have a human system made up of evil, sinful people trying to control a culture of evil, sinful people. The potential for breakdown is inevitable, and it has been demonstrated historically. That’s why the Bible says the world gets worse and worse; evil men get worse and worse as time goes on.

But there’s something more than just that. There’s something more than just the human complex of sinners trying to restrain sin, which in the end is a losing effort. There’s something more that we have to face, and that’s in 1 John 5:19, and I want you to look at it. First John 5:19, “We know that we are of God.” We, believers, are of God. And then this very, very important statement, “And that the whole world lies in”—literally—“in the evil one.” The whole world is in the control of the evil one. It isn’t just that everybody’s sinful; it is that there is an evil supernatural power: the evil one.

Who is this archenemy of God, this evil one? Listen to John 12:31, where Jesus speaks of the devil and says he is “the ruler of this world.” And then again in John 14 and verse 30, He calls the devil the ruler of this world. And then again in chapter 16 and verse 11, for the third time, “the ruler of this world.” And in Ephesians 2:2, he is “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit working in the sons of disobedience.”

So you have Satan, who is the world ruler, who operates in the system and—listen carefully—in the people. The whole world is in his kingdom—John 8:44, “You’re of your father the devil.” And Satan is in them in the sense that he can attach his devious, evil deception to the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life—and that way exercise influence over them. He is “the god of this world,” 2 Corinthians 4:4, who blinds minds. And Paul says in Ephesians 6:12, “We wrestle not against flesh and blood”—humanity—“but against principalities and powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, spiritual wickedness in the heavenlies.”

It’s not just a human complex of evil, it is behind that that the entire force of hell operates. The enemy is not just sinful people, it is the system of evil behind that visible evil, that invisible system basically under the control of the prince of demons, Satan himself, and all his demon cohorts. Evil operates in the heart of every human being, so there is a kosmos of evil that operates in the human heart. But there’s another powerful kosmos of evil in the invisible spiritual world run by Satan.

What is Satan’s objective? Listen to Peter’s words, 1 Peter 5:8, “Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour, seeking someone to devour.” He’s a killer. John 8 tells us “he’s a liar, the father of lies,” and he’s “a murderer.” He tempts, he lies, he seduces, he slanders; and Scripture gives us all of these illustrations. He distracts, he divides, he destroys, he sifts, he silences, he strategizes, he steals, he oppresses, he possesses, he blinds, and he kills.

And how does he gain the power to do this? How is he so adept at drawing people into his methods? The answer comes in Revelation 12:9, which says this: “Satan deceives the whole world.” “Satan deceives the whole world.” Paul told the Corinthians he is disguised as an angel of light, and therein lies the deception.

So what we’re dealing with in the world is not just a complex of human evil, as vast and complete and comprehensive as it is, we’re dealing with another level altogether—not just that visible human world, but that invisible demonic world. And Satan’s ultimate goal is to prevent people from coming to Christ. His ultimate goal is to take over everything, to rule in the place of God. He is the usurper. And he has a goal, he has an objective: He’s heading human history toward his kingdom. He has a goal, he has an objective: Satan is systematically working to get to his kingdom.

That kingdom is described for us in the book of Revelation. Turn to chapter 13 of Revelation, one of the most amazing images in this incredible revelation. As he moves through human history, Satan wants to strip all elements of divine law and all elements of divine truth from society. He’s moving the world into his final design. Chapter 13, verse 1, John has a vision of a dragon “on the sand of the seashore,” and he sees a monster, “a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names.” This is a monster—this is a monster who consolidates power and consolidates national leadership; the ten and the seven speak of that consolidation. All the crowns are on his head, and all of them have the name of blasphemy because this is the kingdom that Satan is pulling together as the final attempt to dethrone God. It describes this kingdom as having powers like a leopard, a bear, and a lion; and what we find here is this monster is none other than the final Antichrist.

“Even now,” John says, there are “many antichrists.” This is the final one. He rises up out of the sea, out of the nations. He consolidates all world power—this is globalism symbolized by ten horns, a number of completion, as is seven heads. He has the consolidated power and the consolidated authority. He is a blasphemer, but a powerful one. And the dragon is Satan, and the dragon gave the Antichrist in John’s vision his power, his throne, and his great authority. At some point in the future the world will be, verse 3 says, amazed at this monster. And as a result of his influence they will worship the devil, the dragon, because he gave his authority to the beast. They worship the beast, the monster, the Antichrist, “saying, ‘Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?’”

—-

Francis Schaeffer in chapter 2 of CHRISTIAN MANIFESTO tells what the founders attitude towards God and religion and religious influence on government:

The men who formed the United States in those days from the original 13 states knew very specifically and consciously what they were doing. Let me give you some phrases.  Certain “inalienable rights.” They knew what they were doing.Inalienable rights. Where do inalienable rights come from? Not out of irrelativism, surely. Certain inalienable rights. “In God We Trust” soon marched along, along with the previous statement. There was a paid chaplain functioning for the United States Congress before the war was even finished. I wonder if you realize that. And the first Thanksgiving Day was called in order to say thank you to God for the winning of war. These men really knew what they were doing, and they consciously understood the basis of the government which they had established. Also, we must remember that the earlier provincial congresses and the various states — in every single one, they opened with prayer. From the beginning of the United States Congress after it was formed, it always opened with prayer.

________________

Witherspoon’s sermon on that first Thanksgiving Day shows their perspective. As he said, “A republic once equally poised must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty.” That was the crux of his first Thanksgiving service immediately after the war was won. In an earlier speech, we find Witherspoon saying, “He is the best friend of American liberty who is most sincere and active in promoting pure and undefiled religion.” This is Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence.

The First Amendment was only for a specific purpose — that there would be no established church for the united 13 colonies or states. That was its basic purpose. As a matter of fact, there were individual states at that time that had state churches. And even this was not considered to be in conflict with the purpose of the First Amendment. To have suggested a viable state separated from religion — which at times meant a general concept of Christianity — to suggest a viable state to these original men separated from religious influence would have utterly amazed them.

Francis Schaeffer in his book CHRISTIAN MANIFESTO makes this same point that the humanist worldview sets itself up against God and God’s word:

CHAPTER 4 THE HUMANIST RELIGION (Page 445)

The humanists have openly told us their views of final reality. The Humanist Manifesto I (1933), page 8 says

Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any super-natural or cosmic guarantees of human values.

And Carl Sagan indoctrinated millions of unsuspecting viewers with this humanistic final view of reality in the public television show Cosmos: “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” The humanist view has infiltrated every level of society.

If we are going to join the battle in a way that has any hope of effectiveness – with Christians truly being salt and the light in our culture and our society – then we must do battle on the entire front. We must not finally even battle on the front for freedom, and specifically not only our freedom. It must be on the basis of Truth. Not just religious truths, but the Truth of what the final reality is. It is impersonal material or is it the living God?

The ruling of the Supreme Court in the Torcaso v. Watkins case in 1961 is instructive in another way. It shows that within the span of 28 years the Supreme Court turned radically from a Christian memory to the humanistic consensus. In 1933 in the United States v. MacIntosh case about conscientious objection, Justice Hughes stated in his dissent:

“The essence of religion is belief in a relation to God involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation….One cannot speak of religious liberty, with proper appreciation of its essential and historical significance, without assuming the existence of a belief in supreme allegiance to the will of God.”

In 1965 in United States v. Seeger, also about conscientious objection, the Court held that the test of religious belief is a “sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualifying for the exemption.” This, of course, is a drastic change away from the position of 1933.

—

During the last twenty years it has been my practice to visit in person with those that don’t agree with my political or religious views and just try to get to know them. Back in 1996 while on a family trip to  New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Delaware, and New Jersey,  we had dinner one night with Herbert A. Tonne, who was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto II. While in Missouri several years ago I got to spend a couple of hours with the former Unitarian minister Lester Mondale and his wife at their cabin. Rev. Mondale (1904-2003) was the only person to sign each of the three Humanist Manifestos of 1933, 1973, and 2003.

Several of these meetings led to longtime friendships. The Late Professor John George who has written books for Prometheus Press (a secular humanist group) was my good friend during the last 10 years of his life. (I still miss him today.) We often ate together and were constantly talking on the phone and writing letters to one another. Ed Babinski, the author of LEAVING THE FOLD, has corresponded with me for almost 20 years now, and that goes also for evolutionist Kevin Henke.

On August 7, 2014 I was able to meet another signer of the Humanist Manifesto II, and I must say it we had a delightful time.  I got to visit with Jim and Betty Grace  McCollum, and I gave them a tour of Little Rock Broom Works and how we make brooms and mops. Jim said he really enjoyed visiting manufacturing plants and learning how products were made. As you see below Jim is wearing a Southern Arkansas University shirt where he furthering his education. After living in Rochester, New York for 34 years and practicing law, he moved to Arkansas in 1994. They have been living in Emerson, Arkansas ever since. Below you can see pictured from left to right: Betty Grace and Jim McCollum, Everette Hatcher, and Wilson Hatcher.

 Jim’s mother was  Vashti McCollum, a housewife who later became president of the American Humanist Association. Her U.S. Supreme Court victory in McCollum v. Board of Education established that American public schools must be religiously neutral. I mentioned to Jim that I have visited with Lester Mondale at his cabin in Missouri and he pointed out that Lester was the only living signer of Humanist Manifesto I until his death several years ago.

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband. I also respect you for putting your faith in Christ for your eternal life. I am pleading to you on the basis of the Bible to please review your religious views concerning abortion. It was the Bible that caused the abolition movement of the 1800’s and it also was the basis for Martin Luther King’s movement for civil rights and it also is the basis for recognizing the unborn children. I wanted to encourage you to investigate the work of Dr. Bernard Nathanson who like you used to be pro-abortion. I also want you to watch the You Tube series WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop. Also it makes me wonder what our the moral climate Of our nation is when we concentrate more on potential mistakes of the police and we let criminals back on the street so fast! Our national was founded of LEX REX and not REX LEX!

Related posts:

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)