Alright, someone told me this morning that the link to this amazing message I posted two days ago has been ‘made private’ and they weren’t able to view it anymore. That’s strange. The link worked fine two days ago and the number of views was piling up fast – every time I looked at it, hundreds more had seen it.
But she was right. When I tried it now, it was labeled “private”. What is the problem with seeing it? The speech was made at an official gathering for the inaugural – isn’t that a public event? So I went looking for a new link.
I found a new link – and this was the message under it…
“Published on Jan 27, 2013…This video has been erased, made “private”, and held back from people seeing it. So, what truth is in it making it such a battle to see it? Speak! The World Is Listening!”
For those who haven’t seen it yet – it is an amazing message given to a huge roomful of politicians in DC just last week – on Monday, January 21, 2013 … Many of the politicians were probably there just to be ‘seen’ and probably expected nothing more than standard fluff to be spewed –
This is a MUST see! -
A woman was advocating for rights of tribal members and freedom from tribal government tyranny, while at the same time telling me that my husband and I were wrong to share our Christianity because the only way tribal members can be free from alcohol is through traditional religion.
So… while on the one hand she decried being dictated to and controlled by tribal government, she was attempting to dictate to and control other tribal members when it came to spirituality.
This is a very important point about freedom for tribal members. Some tribal governments do try to dictate that tribal members follow traditional religion, not any other.
When my husband, Roland, was testifying in Seattle against tribal jurisdiction, a representative of the National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) told us that reservations have a right to keep Christians off their property – and Christians have no right to speak to tribal members about their religion.
We asked “What if an elder has lived there all his life and becomes a Christian – and wants to talk to his grandchildren about it?” The NICWA representative answered that the grandfather had no right to speak to his grandchildren about it and would have to move.
This is not an unusual point of view within some tribal circles, nor was it unusual in many historical dictatorships where one religion was chosen for the entire country and all had to abide by it. This was why many settlers came to America and why the very first phrase of our constitutional amendments addresses freedom of religion.
Then comes the Indian Child Welfare Act, which is used by some tribal governments to dictate the religion Indian children must be raised in. Some times exposure to powwows and traditional Indian religion is mandated by courts and tribal governments as a condition of foster care or adoption. Other times, children are simply removed from Christian homes. This can happen even if the parents and grandparents placed the children in that home and want the children to be raised Christian.
Because ICWA is a federal law, the U.S. Congress is just as much to blame for this robbing of individual freedom and 1st amendment rights as tribal governments.
My husband and I knew who we wanted to be guardians of our kids if we were to die. We chose a man from our church. His race didn’t matter to us – his spirituality and heart were all that mattered. This was – and is – our constitutional and God-given right as parents to choose. Neither Congress nor any tribal government should be allowed to steal that from us.
NO ONE else in America is put underneath a law that dictates how you are supposed to spiritually raise your kids. The 1st amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”… but the ICWA Congress enacted comes dangerously close to doing just that.
Dying in Indian Country is available at:
Does Dominion Theology, which has been called both a rescue for our deteriorating society and a false system of prophecy, offer a valid perspective on eschatology, or does it offer a dangerous shift from “Gospel and the Kingdom of God” to “Law and the kingdom of man?”
Dominion Theology embraces many of the same teachings of most conservative evangelical groups that hold the Bible to be inerrant. However, it also holds to some unique teachings. For example, it promotes an approach concerning God’s law that is radically different from that of the majority of conservative Christians.
Dominion Theology separates itself by calling for all civil laws to be based upon Biblical Principles. According to author David Smith, “Increasing numbers, however, are entering the movement, seeing it as a means of reestablishing the greatness and former glory of the Christian Faith, and even ushering in the kingdom of God in the here and now.”
HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT
Dominion Theology, also called “the Christian Reconstructionist Movement” and “Kingdom Now Theology,” began to take root in the 1960′s. Promoting a doctrine called “Theonomy,” the growth of Dominion theology was aided by the ever apparent deterioration of American society. The movement promises that by returning to Mosaic Law, society will return to Christian morality, decency and security. By 1973, dominion theory was gaining ground among intellectuals. It was at this time that the late Rousas John Rushdoony, known as the “father of Christian Reconstructionism, published his book, “The Institutes on Biblical Law,”
LEADING FIGURES IN THE MOVEMENT
R.J. Rushdoony, born in New York in 1916 to Armenian immigrants, stated that he came from an unbroken line of pastors all the way back to the 4th century. Well educated, he worked as a missionary before pastoring a series of Presbyterian churches. He then founded the Chalcedon Foundation in 1965 to promote a new “Christian Reconstructionism.” Later referred to as a “think tank of the extreme religious right,” the institute was named after the Council of Chalcedon of 451 AD, where Jesus Christ was affirmed “Lord over all” and it was taught that “all earthly power must conform to the Word of God.”
Rushdoony believed that the authority of human institutions was thus limited. Founding documents of his organization include the statement,
“All laws should be based on Biblical law and that Christ will not return until ‘the Holy Spirit has empowered the church to advance Christ’s Kingdom in time and history.‘”
In 1973, after having written about 30 other books on Theology, Rushdoony wrote “The Institutes on Biblical Law.” Contained within two volumes and 900 pages was the first book related to Dominion Theology, or “Theonomy” (God-law).
Rushdoony and Chalcedon have been very influential within certain circles. Rushdoony influenced former presidential candidate Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus and US Taxpayers Party to convert from Judaism. He has also worked with the Council for National Policy and the Conservative Caucus, (which is also chaired by Howard Phillips.)
Greg Bahnsen, another famous Theonomist, began reading Rushdoony’s books when he was young. He earned his Masters of Divinity and Theology and later, in 1977, published a book called “Theonomy in Christian Ethics.” In it he taught that Mosaic Law should be applied to all of life. The book was so controversial that it caused him to lose his position at the Reformed Seminary in which he was teaching.
Gary North, Rushdoony’s son-in-law, assisted Rushdoony with editing the “Journal of Christian Reconstruction” from 1974 until the two had an argument in 1981. He then moved to Tyler, Texas, and founded the “Institute for Christian Economics (ICE).” Formed for the purpose of “Publishing Christian, free-market economics, educational materials, newsletters and books,” ICE believes that
“decentralized free-market economics are Biblically ordained” and that “Christianity is innately decentralist,” stating, “From the beginning orthodox Christians have denied the divinity of the state…they denied the operating presupposition of the ancient world, namely, the legitimacy of a divine rule or divine State.”
North has written quite a few publications through the years concerning Dominion Theology.
Other influential figures include David Chilton, Gary DeMar, Joseph Kickasola and Ray Sutton. David Chilton advanced the Dominion theory of Biblical Prophecy through his books, “Paradise Restored” in 1985 and “Days of Vengeance” in 1987. Gary DeMar was a student of Bahnsen’s at the Reformed Seminary. He was later the director of the Institute of Christian Government in Atlanta, Georgia. He has authored several books and led seminars on God and Government. Joseph Kickasola was a professor of international studies and Hebrew at Regent University. Ray Sutton was an Episcopal priest. His book, “That You May Prosper,” is considered a classical Dominion view on Biblical covenants.
Three hundred sixty four days a year, the priest was present during the first three acts of a sacrifice, but began his function only after the blood was received for sprinkling. However, on the Day of Atonement, the priest performed all parts of the sacrifice. Lev. 23:27-32
In the first part of the sacrifice, the sinful worshipper brought his live, unblemished sacrifice to the elevated altar, just as our sinless Christ was raised up on the cross.
During the second part, the offensive worshipper laid his hands on the scapegoat or victim’s head. This action has always been understood to be a communication between one party and another, and in this case, it was a symbolic transfer of guilt to the substitute. On the Day of Atonement, it was accompanied with the confession of sin. Lev. 16: 20-22, 2 Chr. 29:24
The third part was the killing of the animal. Only through the death of one can another live. This was also done on most days by the hand of the worshipper. Just he, who had laid his hand on the victim, could perform the slaughter. In the same way, the Lord Jesus met his violent death by the hand of the Sinners he was dying for.
The fourth part of the sacrifice involved the sprinkling of blood. This was where the priest, who had usually been standing aside as a witness, took his role. Without the priest, the sacrifice could not be offered correctly. Receiving the blood, he made it his own, and poured it on the horns, the altar’s highest point, the foot of the altar and the mercy seat. The priest, in his proper vestments and sanctification, shadowed the holy righteousness of God. In stepping in at this time and accepting the blood as his own, he is portraying that what was done to the victim was supposed to have been done to him. Ex. 30:10
The fifth and final act was the burning of the victim. The first fire for Aaron’s first sacrifice was a holy fire from heaven, never to be extinguished (Lev. v. 6-7). Rising to heaven with a sweet smelling savor, the burnt offering was recognized as an acceptable sacrifice. Some also surmise that the smoke is a shadow of the Holy Spirit.
But the frequency and repetition of the sacrifices reflected their inadequacy. David (Ps. 40:6 and 51:16) Asaph (Ps 50:8), Micah (6:6) and Isaiah (1:11) give clear testimony that the sacrifices were inadequate. The blood of lambs and goats could never take away the stain of moral sin or spiritual guilt.
Fifty days later, at Mount Sinai, God gave His law as the foundation of His covenant. (Exodus chapters 19-24). The early animal sacrifices were always symbolic, and blood was always known to be sacred and necessary for atonement and forgiveness. This was true of all bloody sacrifices from the beginning, but now, with Mosaic Law, it was especially true. Burnt offerings, originally from the primeval and patriarchal age, were now joined by other forms of sacrifice. With the previous burnt offerings, the worshipper had not yet broken the Covenant God was to have with Israel, and the offering was meant to cover the general sin attached to every man. The new “sin offering” expressed that covenant WAS broken through the offense, and the offering was meant to restore relationship with God.
There are several Old Testament words for sin. The primary ones being looked at here are Chataah, Chattath, Chata, and Chet. They all refer to an offense, a sacrifice for sin, or a sin offering. Chata is a deeper word, and can also refer to the offender himself, to a habitual sin, to forfeit, repent, lead astray, condemn, bear the blame, or purify. Also used in Lev. 4:3b is the word “Ashmah,” which means guiltiness, a fault, or the presentation of a sin offering. It is translated as “offend,” “cause of sin,” and “trespass.” “Shagah,” used in Lev. 4:13, means to stray, transgress, be encaptured, and is translated as to “err,” “be ravished,” “sin through ignorance,” and “wander.” “Peri Amartia” from Lev. 4:35, 5:6, and 6:17 of the Septuagint, meant “sin-offering.”
These offerings were not for the sake of man or the state, but for God. (Lev. 4:1-32, 5:1-8). In addition, the law now divided sacrifices into different classes for different purposes and kept them before the eyes of Israel. God demonstrated the importance of the blood at the consecration of the priests, birth of a child, and even high festivals. (Ex. 23:14-18, 29; Lev. 1-4:1-32, 5:1-19, 6:1-37, and 16:33).
After the covenant was read and accepted by the people of Israel, it needed to be established with blood. Several bulls were killed, and their blood was sprinkled on the altar, the book of the covenant, and the people. This event was the first recorded time of blood being sprinkled directly on people, and therefore, intimates greater accountability.
Immediately after this sacrificial rite, the Lord announced that he wanted a sanctuary built and He would dwell among them. (Exodus chapters 25-30.) He gave strict directions for the building of the tabernacle and it was functionally designed for blood sacrifice. God’s blueprint included the necessary furniture designed for the purification of worshippers and the killing of animals, as well as the Most Holy Place, where only the high priest could enter – carrying blood.
Later, the fact that the sanctuary furniture was sprinkled with blood during certain sacrifices reminds the Israelites that the sanctuary was an symbol for the way God inhabits His church and dwells among His people. (Lev. 16:16) It wasn’t the building itself that was unworthy; the sins of the people made the sanctuary unworthy as a dwelling place for God. However, God could continue to dwell there if He beheld the blood of atonement. That the people needed the reconciliation and not the place is evidenced in the fact the ceremonies were for the transgressions of Israel (Lev. 16:16) and made atonement for the people and the priests (Lev. 16:33)
The importance of the Blood is further illustrated through the description of the Day of Atonement. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest brought the Blood of the sin offering, which had been collected in front of the people, into the Most Holy Place, where no one but himself was allowed. This illustrates that the Blood offering was for God alone, and the transaction was to take place between only God and His representative. Lev. 17:11.
ALL Bloody sacrifices were atoning. Number one, blood sacrifice was shocking in its character; satisfaction came only through a victim’s death. But they also pointed out to the worshipper that he had offended God and God was forced to separate from him. God could not sacrifice His holiness for the sake of His love for the worshipper. So while estranged from God for having broken the covenant, the Israelite was very aware that not only did he have ceremonial guilt and was separated from God’s presence, but that death must ensue because the wages of sin is death. The main thought under Mosaic Law was that transgressions violated the order of the universe and had to be punished. No regrets could remove the guilt, so death is the only recourse.
Interestingly, the sins that the Mosaic sacrifices atoned for were not moral sins, such as murder, adultery or idolatry, but offenses against ceremonial law and theocratic purity, including involuntary oversights and sins of ignorance. (Lev. 12:7-8, Num. 6:11). The Law was an external, arbitrary law, and external, arbitrary atonements could cover the resulting offenses to the Law. The Law and its atonement had come into being at the same time, in order to relieve the worshipper, to develop the idea of sin, and awaken consciences to the fact of sin. The same authority that instituted the ceremonial rites could cancel the offenses.
This was not mere penitence. The mediating priest and the laying of his hands on the worshipper’s head indicates that the guilt was transferred vividly. The effect of the sacrifices was remission of the penalty, independent of contrition and remorse. Nor was it renewal of homage. It had nothing to do with a friendly feast, but was intended to transfer the sinner’s guilt on to a victim. It was meant to prevent penalty that had been earned, and to secure remission of sin (Lev. 4:20)
For reasons only God fully understands, shed blood was a vitally important event throughout the Old Testament. The Blood of Atonement, and its importance are mentioned about one hundred times within the books of Law and the prophets.
What is Atonement? The Hebrew word for atonement, “Kaphar,” means to cover, expiate, condone, placate, or cancel. It has been translated as “appease,” “pardon,” “purge,” “make reconciliation,” “put off,” and of course, “atonement.” Another word for atonement, “Kippur”, means expiation and is translated, simply, “Atonement.”
The primary Old Testament passages that deal with the theology of Atonement include the account of Abel in Genesis 4, the account of Noah in Genesis chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9, Abraham and Isaac in Gen. 22, Israel leaving Egypt, Exodus 12, and Mount Sinai in Exodus chapters 19-30. Leviticus 1-4:1-35 describes the rituals of atonement, and Leviticus 16: 1-33 describes the Great Day of Atonement. Other important passages include Gen. 3:15 and 30:10; Lev. 5:1-19, 6:1-37, 16: 1-34, 17:11, and 23:27-32; 2Ch. 29:24, Isa. 53, and Dan. 9:24-27.
From the first, animal sacrifices were a shadow of the Great Atonement to come. The connection between the two was very real. The Mosaic books, History, Prophets and Psalms, when discussing blood sacrifice, provide prophetic foreshadowing of the atonement the Messiah would make for us all. Beginning with Genesis 3:15, a passage describing enmity between the woman and the snake, we see the first point where we see prophecy and violence occur together.
Blood sacrifice is a clear and well-understood fact of life in the early chapters of Genesis. There is nothing in ordinary way of thinking that would lead men, back then or now, to believe that sacrifice would somehow please God more than anything else. Yet, the first act of worship recorded in the Bible, the animal sacrifice Abel offered to the Lord in Gen. 4, was said to be acceptable to God, and Able is known as the first “Believer.” This first mention of sacrifice does not give the impression it was a new invention of Abel’s. Shed blood was described in a way that showed it was offered by divine appointment, not just Abel’s will.
Next, the Flood in Genesis chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9 was both a clear example of God’s deadly judgement on sin as well as another example of the clear understanding early man had concerning sacrificial rites. At the time of Noah, the difference between clean animals and unclean animals was obviously well understood, as Noah classified them as such. In addition, Noah’s first act after leaving the Ark was to offer a burnt offering to the Lord.
Bloody sacrifices maintained a conviction of man’s guilt and a dependence on God’s forgiving grace. They taught that reconciliation could be obtained in no other way but through God’s divine justice. But they also symbolized God’s mercifulness, in that an animal victim could serve as a substitute. The offending worshipper must die, without possibility of living in fellowship with God, unless a sin offering were offered which removed it. On that ground, the sinner could be restored. From the beginning, as hard as it is for modern man to understand, blood sacrifice was a gracious, God appointed ritual given as a way to reconcile with God.
In Gen. 22, Abraham and Isaac had a divine appointment on Mount Moriah. As much as Abraham grieved the task set before him, he understood that only by killing his son could he be obedient to God. This was not arbitrary. There was a deeper meaning to what was going on than just the task that sat before him. Abraham and Isaac both understood the purpose of sacrifice, as sacrifice had long been a part of their lives, as well as the truth that most men understood at that time: that the only way to be fully consecrated to God was through a death. Blessedly, Isaac’s life was spared and a ram was substituted. By the ram’s blood, Isaac was figuratively raised from the dead.
In chapter 12 of the book of Exodus, Israel prepares to leave Egypt. What was done for one person on Mount Moriah will now be done for a nation. So the nation of Israel, God’s first born, spreads blood from a paschal lamb on its doorposts. Many people die that night, but not God’s redeemed people. God had told them, “When I see the blood, I will pass over you.” That night, the people of Israel learned that life is possible only with the killing of a substitute lamb and the sprinkling of that substitute’s blood. The Passover night illustrates the importance of the blood to God.
“Christian Theology, or Dogmatics as the term is often used technically, is that branch of theological science which aims to set forth in a systematic manner the doctrines of the Christian faith.
“The term theology is derived from the Greek words theos (qeoV) and logos (logoV), and originally signified a discourse about God. The word was in use before the advent of Christ and the development of the Christian Church.
Aristotle in his Organon applied the term theology to his highest or first philosophy. The Greeks were accustomed to applying the term theologoi to their honored poets and teachers, such as Homer, Hesiod and Orpheus, “who with poetic inspiration sang of the gods and divine things.”
In its most general sense, therefore, the term theology may be applied to the scientific investigation of real or supposed sacred persons, things or relations. However crude the content of these treatises may be, usage allows it to be called theology if the subject matter is concerned with that which is regarded as sacred. The term is therefore elastic and somewhat vague, and must be made more definite and specific by the use of qualifying terms as Christian or Ethnic theology.
Definitions of Christian Theology. Christian theology has been defined in various ways by the masters of this science. Perhaps none of these definitions, however, exceeds in adequacy or comprehensiveness that of William Burton Pope who defines it as “the science of God and divine things, based upon the revelation made to mankind in Jesus Christ, and variously systematized within the Christian Church.”
Enough is enough. Christians from all Denominations and across all walks of life are coming together to oppose the progressive legislation that attacks human life, the week and vulnerable, and the family.
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
They call this the “Manhattan Project” because Christian leaders met in Manhattan to discuss and begin this. Essentially, it calls us to civil disobedience if that is need be. It says –
“We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
1.the sanctity of human life
2.the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3.the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”
Join us – read & sign the Manhattan Declaration at www.manhattandeclaration.org/
More Christian News, Resources and Media at www.christsinternet.com/