Joseph Farah has announced the release of his new book, None of the Above, for August 18th.
Farah will attempt to explain why neither McCain nor Obama are qualified for office, and is recommending that voters go to the ballot box with a third party or write vote of "None of the Above". Farah believes Republicans and Democrats both need a wake-up call.
Read the Related World Net Daily Article
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I agree that neither Obama nor McCain is qualified for president. I would go further and say that either will be a disaster as president. I left the Republican Party on June 14 and joined the Constitution Party. I will be writing in Chuck Baldwin for president.
Jerald Finney
I've told you in the past my good man, "I can no longer vote (R) with any conscience. I'm not familiar with the Farah book but I would agree with the premise that neither are qualified or good for the country.
I think Beck said Jimmy Carter gave us Ronald Reagan. He's right but that should make us pray even "harder" for the next 4 years.
Thanks for your excellent insights and your questions, Aaron. It is good to see someone on top of these vital issues. My book covers all the issues raised in the broadcast on the Sunday program, all the issues you raised and more. The standard relied on in the book is the Word of God, not man's reasoning which is always wrong and leads to ill consequences when it conflicts with the Word of God. Reasoning without reference to the Word of God is the wrong way to address any issue. From your comments, I believe you will agree.
Aaron, I don't know that I can address all your questions on this blog in the detail you want. It would take a 464 page book such as God Betrayed. Let me give you a brief answer to your questions and refer you to the appropriate part of the book for complete information. One must read the whole book to totally understand the issues because they are all related. [God's children will have to be willing to study with an open mind, unhampered by fear, covetousness, or anything else to undertand the issues.]
As to your first question, punishing evil doers (as defined by the Bible and not by any other standard) is within the God-given jurisdiction of civil government. This is clear from a correct reading of Ge. 8-9; Ro. 13; 1 Ti. 18-11, 2.1-6; 1 Pe. 2.13-14 and other passages within both the Old and New Testaments. God ordained civil government giving man responsibility to govern the world for God (Ge. 8-9) because, without such restraint, man had shown that due to his continually evil imagination, he would become totally corrupt. The reason for the flood was this total corruption of mankind-except for Noah and his family-operating without any restraint except conscience and knowledge of right and wrong. Since that time, as to earthly matters, man has had the responsibility of governing the world for God, under the jurisdiction and principles laid out by God. See Part I of the book, especially Section I, which deals with the biblical principles concerning government (self-government, family government, church government-which is actually addressed in Section II- and civil government).
Second, you asked about the plague of Christian historical revisionism. I was a victim of this revisionism for over 20 years after being saved. In fact, most of the popular "Christian" books dealing with the history of the First Amendment, the Constitution and its amendments, the Declaration of Independence, etc. are only a revised version or, at best, incomplete version of what really happened. I cover this topic in the book in several places, but especially in Section IV, Chapters 1-3. Because of this revisionism, much of the Christian community, myself included until a few years ago, were proceeding according to lies. That is why we have seen the continual downward slide of morality, individuals, family, church, and civil government in America. This is especially true in the legal arena where most Christian lawyers proceed according to human reasoning based upon the principles of the god of this world as handed down to them by secular and religious insitutions, judges' opinions (esp. Supreme Court opinions), Christian revisionism, etc. Section V of God Betrayed discusses this. When an attorney says, e.g., "I think that incorporation/501(c)(3) are good because [whatever reason he gives]," his standard can only be human reasoning. When he advises churches as to what they can say or do according to the Supreme Court and the laws of the land, he shows that his standard is not the Word of God. The Bible undoubtedly teaches that Christ desires believers and His churches to be under Him only. He is likened to the husband, bridegroom, and head of a church. A church cannot be a pure New Testament church if it subjects herself to any other entity-that is, if she becomes a legal entity in any way, including incorporation, 501(c)(3), license, or in any other manner. See God Betrayed, the whole book, and esp. Section VI.
In America, a church can operate without persecution as a pure New Testament church. This is guaranteed by the First Amendment. The pastors and members of a pure New Testament church have no restrictions on what they can say about anything because such a church is not a legal entity. I know that this raises many questions and objections to the unknowledgeable believer (as well as to the lost person), but all those questions and objections are addressed in God Betrayed. Let me briefly add that a church may utilize property in a manner which conforms with both biblical principle and the laws of America. I specifically cover this in Section VI, Chapter 7, "Spurious Rationale for incorporating: to hold property."
Your last question referred to the obviously false interpretations of Ro. 13 which is today used by pastors and others to justify almost unlimited submission to civil government. I get into this in some detail in God Betrayed, especially Section III, chapters 5 and 6 (Chapter 6 analyzes the meaning of Ro. 13 and 1 Pe. 2.13). In summary, the false Americanized version of Ro. 13 and 1 Pe. 2.13would make those Scriptures inconsistent within themselves and inconsistent with the rest of Scripture.
The sad fact, Aaron, is that most believers are not only carnal, they are ignorant of the Word of God. True biblical principles scare them so much that they reject those principles without consideration. They are willfully ignorant. See Ho. 4 for God's comments on willful ignorance. After salvation, one has a responsibility to grow in many areas, including knowledge. See, e.g., 2 Pe. 1.2-10. We are in a spiritual warfare, and we are told to fight this warfare by taking on the whole armor of God, which includes, among other things, having our loins girt about with truth. Ep. 6.11-18. Sadly, most believers, including most pastors, have no biblical knowledge and have their loins girt about with lies.
In addition, most believers are afraid of civil government. I discuss this in God Betrayed. This fear is baseless, since freedom of religion and speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment for an individual and for a church which remains pure, not under civil government. Even if there were no First Amendment, is it not the truth which sets us free (John 8.31-32 and other verses); and is it not Christ who gives life [many Scriptures declare this and the true believer knows this]. Those Christians in the underground church in China who are beaten, tortured, imprisoned and killed have life and liberty. Lost people in America are in bondage to the law of sin and death-they have no freedom and they are spiritually dead. Carnal Christians "desire again to be in bondage." Ga. 4.9.
**This is a copy of from the other blog. Why is there two?**
Brent Bullock,
Thank you so much for having this topic on your Political Hope broadcast. Now that we have a general introduction to Stephen Reeves and Jerald Finney, I would ask that you have a part 2, 3 or more as this subject must be covered in more detail.
I was concerned about two statements made by Stephen concerning the State having the authority (in his mind) to license teachers related to Church ministries AND the perceived benefit (in his opinion) for a Church having the IRS 501.c3 tax exemption status. I also wanted to ask about Jerald's book. I was on hold for 15 minutes before the end of the program came due to the volume of callers you had. I didn't get to express my concerns before the time ran out. So I express them here.
As I understood Stephen, he found it appropriate to have the State in control of the beliefs of a Church as it pertained to regulating them through the licensing of a Boys Home ministry- part of a local New Testament Church's faith and practice. Also he was in agreement with the 501.c3 issue explaining that for financial reasons a Church is restricted from supporting or denouncing political candidates or parties- a local New Testament faith and practice.
I wanted to ask both men questions; therefore, I'm hoping you will consider having both of them back again.
The questions I wanted to ask Stephen would have been (and still are) with grace and the spirit of learning intended:
1st- Is the Church of Jesus Christ a place, property, building or structure? He obviously would have said no.
Then: 2- How is it then Stephen you link/associate fire hydrants, handicap parking, water fountains, restrooms and exit signs (all things pertaining to a building and appropriately under civil- government jurisdiction) with the beliefs of a pure New Testament Church [regenerate people indwelt by the invisible Spirit of God and His doctrine] as in the case of Finney's former Church [people] having a ministry for children [doctrine/beliefs/practice].
3rd- Stephen, at what point do you make a distinction over the doctrines the State may or may not regulate (in your mind) when the God over all authentic and appropriate authority never delegated authority to the State/Government over matters of faith and practice?
4th- When the State says “All Charitable [501.c3] organizations [the State created] must abide by the policy that doesn't discriminate on the biases of sexual orientation in polices [beliefs] or staffing [practice]”, what then will you do or say Stephen? This is not a matter of preference or where is your "the line in the sand" kind of thing. Either, God is God- in charge [regardless of what the civil or uncivil government thinks], and He is sovereign, the eternal Potentate- or 'God' is merely another imagined 'deity' created in the image of man to appeal to the self-esteem philosophies of humanism.
5th- If the State (in your mind) can regulate what a Church practices and believes regarding an educational ministry built upon The Solid Rock and Colossians 2:8, who is 'God' in this instance?
6th- If some other entity has or convinces others they posses the authority to regulate faith and practice of a New Testament Church, who then is God when you obey/ submit?
Stephen, as it pertains to who or what the Church supports verbally or financially, the way I heard you is that you think necessary retrains should be on the practice and faith of Churches in the realm of politics as discussed on that program.
Stephen, 7th- If Apostle John was instructed by Lord Jesus himself in the book of Revelation to command God's people to "come out" of the hybrid State/Church government of that day (which is yet future and rapidly emerging) thus being a primary example of a Church declaring a political candidate, his religion and form of government unworthy of a Church's support, by what scripture, standard, or understanding do you conclude that a New Testament Church should be regulated by someone/something other than the God of the Holy Bible and His absolute word?
Here's a probable scenario:
8th- If a local New Testament has establishes with the Bible in context the iniquitous nature of two political parties in their affirmations (beliefs) and actions (practice) and thereby in unanimous agreement denounce a political candidate/party on one hand and declare another candidate as worthy of such an important thing as a vote, in your opinion is this practice of faith in a New Testament Church something that should be regulated by a foreign power (as in the State/ civil- or uncivil- government)? And before you respond with “address the issues- not the individual”, do you recall what John the Baptist, Lord Jesus or Apostle John did in this regard?
9th- Stephen, since you conclude that the Church of Jesus Christ should be regulated with such measures as in the 501.c3 (and there is so much more than money as stake in that code), would you affirm that this matter should be something enforced by the State so no Church will misappropriate funds as a witness of their faith and practice, which actually should be the interest of a congregation of saints who monitor and regulate themselves under the declarations in the holy writ and the perceived or real direction of the God they worship, obey and love?
Now on to Jerald Finney who did mention the Church of Jesus Christ should not be subject to the State/civil- or uncivil- government in ANY matter.
Jerald, I know you briefly explained how those who transgress appropriate civil laws as an individual Christian or a Church are to be and should be punished under the laws (not formed by mischief- Ps. 94:20) that are in keeping with the delegated responsibility and jurisdiction to God granted to civil authorities.
My questions to you Jerald:
1st- Will you please expand on that issue with both biblical examples and recent case law so people don't misconstrue what you are correctly saying?
2nd- In your book, do you cover the plague of historical revisionism going on in modern 'Christianity'? And please address this critical issue with examples.
3rd- Romans chapter 13 (and other passages) are being misused by so many today to suggest, state, and require Christians/Churches to do what the State/civil- or uncivil- government says to do. For instance, in the EU it is illegal to home school your children. It is an official declaration of the EU and the one called Pope John Paul that evolution is the means and process of our existence today and as far as the EU is concerned that Creation doctrines are perceived to be in part or primarily the cause for fundamentalist religions and is not to be taught in the EU government… I mean… public schools. The State of California has a bill (#777 if I remember correctly) that attempted to outlaw unlicensed teachers in home schools. China has a one child policy with forced abortions for those who happen to be pregnant with more than one child.
Jerald, I mention these few examples of the 'State' telling people (Christians in particular) they can't educate their children with what God says about Creation or educate them at all, or increase and multiply as His Majesty decreed because I hope your book addresses both the erroneous and the correct understanding of Romans 13.
4th- Does your book cover this enormous and relevant issue? Please elaborate.
****************End of questions
Brent Bullock, I thank you so much for the time you have given to a necessary and needful subject. You have only scratched the surface of something the Church of Jesus Christ has dealt with for nearly two millennium and has shockingly lost sight of in a less than 100 years. Please bring those to men back to continue the discussion.
Keep up the great work and contact me extraordinarymoments@hotmail.com or (512) 587-9631 if I may be of any further encouragement.
For the Glory of God,
Aron Brackeen
Post a Comment