CONFRONTING THE PATRIOTIC FAITH
Thursday, April 7, 2011 at 12:13AM Chris Pinto “For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither
hid, that shall not be known.” (Luke 12:2)
Perhaps more dangerous than yoga, psychology, or any of the new age doctrines that have crept into modern churches, is the ongoing love affair that some believers have with patriotic Christianity. Many Christian leaders, who can easily spot the lies of the New Age movement, abandon all discernment when it comes to the history of America and the idea that this country was founded as a Christian nation. Yes, they are well able to recognize the kundalini serpent crawling up the spine of believers at the gym, but can’t seem to figure out that the Washington monument is a pagan phallic symbol that glorifies a demonic entity. They are unable to discern that just because certain Freemasons wrote “Glory to God” on it does not make it a Christian icon.
Christians who live in America understand that we are soldiers of Christ, who are strangers and pilgrims upon the earth, and who happen to be stationed in a place called America. American Christians, on the other hand, believe that the United States represents the kingdom of God on earth, and their purpose is to promote American values and the revolutionary principles of democracy, rather than the message of life eternal. They will politely refrain from being too forward about such sensitive issues as heaven and hell; but will be bold to speak about freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. “I don’t want to intrude my beliefs on yours,” they say, “unless it comes to my Constitutional rights!” If their zeal for the Lord Jesus were equal to their love for America, we can only wonder what great things might be done for the sake of the truth. As believers living in America, we must ask: is the core message of Americanism, even at its best, really that of the Bible?
Church and State
If one studies these elite societies at any length, he will quickly realize that their religious views cannot be separated from their political machinations. Their insistence on a separation of church and state does not mean they want to separate religion from government. It means they want to separate The Church (i.e. Christianity) from the state. This is why they demand that all Christian icons (the cross, ten commandments, etc.) be removed from government buildings, seals, etc. Yet the pagan icons, such as the Statue of Liberty, the Eye of Horus, the Washington Monument, along with countless other celebrations of the occult religions are never threatened. Yes, the Ten Commandments must be taken away from in front of the courthouse, but the statue of the blindfolded Themis, the Greek goddess of justice, can remain unfettered. The message is clear: the devils can stay, but God must go.
The Founding Fathers of America
Many Christians are repeatedly told by their pastors, teachers and church leaders that America was founded as a Christian nation. This assertion would not be so bad if it were confined to the arrival of the Puritans at Plymouth, and the early development of the new world. If that were the case, it would be an accurate statement in this writer’s opinion. It is very clear that the Puritan/Pilgrims who built the towns, cities and roads for the original 13 colonies did so as Bible believers who were establishing Christian communities. 
The problem arises when one marks the foundation of our country at the American Revolution and the establishment of the United States. It is at this point where all bible believing Christians should be very wary, since the working of occult societies during this era was at an unprecedented height in history. Some historians even argue that you simply cannot understand the history of the world for the past few hundred years if you do not take these societies into account. Their members have been the planners, leaders, and engineers of a global agenda, one that they do not readily share with the rest of the world. More importantly, they often use “religion” as an instrument to manipulate the masses, their belief being that the end justifies the means.
For Christians, our concern should be not for their conspiracy to take over the world, which is simply the fulfillment of God’s prophecies and proof that His Word is true. Rather, our concern must be their corruption of the faith of Christ from within our ranks. In the New Testament, Jude gives us this important exhortation:
“… it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort
you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was
once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men
crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this
condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God
into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our
Lord Jesus Christ.” (Jude 3-4)
Notice that Jude is warning us that we must “contend” (i.e. fight) for the true faith because “certain men” whom he calls “ungodly” have crept into the church. Such warnings are found throughout the New Testament. Jesus warned of “ravening wolves” in “sheep’s clothing” (Matthew 7:15), while Paul warned of “grievous wolves” who would not spare the flock (Acts 20:29), while Peter warned that such men would bring in “damnable heresies” (2 Peter 2:1) and would be denying the Lord, just as Jude confirms.
Sadly, all of the above warnings can be found among the chief Founders of the American Revolution, which will be shown in the following articles. The question is, are the Founders men who have crept into the church? The answer can only be “yes.” Not only were these men involved in churches in their lifetimes, but even two centuries later, their names and philosophies are sounded regularly among the congregations of the Lord. Their influence is among us, as surely as if they lived and breathed at this very hour.
Consider this: when our Puritan fathers founded Harvard University in 1636, they set forth the motto: Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae which means “Truth for Christ and the Church.” That was the original focus of Harvard and they had no problem stating it openly. Nearly four hundred years later, the motto has been shortened to: Veritas. Simply the word for “Truth.” As with many things, “Christ and the Church” have been thrust out. But this is no accident, and is not a betrayal of the “original intent” of the Revolutionaries. On the contrary, it is exactly what they wanted. Yes, the Pilgrims would be turning in their graves, but they are separated from Jefferson, Adams and Franklin by more than a hundred years.
Taking America Back: but back to what?
The evidence will show that the troubles for Christianity in America did not begin when they took prayer out of schools in the 1960’s. It began with the American Revolution. This is especially bad news for those who think we need to “get back to the founding fathers.” George Washington and Thomas Jefferson do not represent the solution -- rather, they were the very beginning of the problem. But to understand this, you must first understand them.
The Bible vs. Secular Terminology
It may be that the greatest single hindrance to discerning the truth about these men is that they are often defined – not by a Biblical standard – but by secular thinking. It is one thing for teachers and professors in universities to have such a view, but quite another for pastors and ministers in the church. Our first responsibility is to the Word of God and the preaching of the Gospel, not to promote secular philosophies and ideas.
It is often given out that certain founders were “deists” or “theists” or some other such thing. Unfortunately, such worldly terms are very misleading and only succeed in masking the truth. It reminds me of an interview I heard with a woman who said she represented a “Pregnancy Alternative Clinic,” which was really an “Abortion Clinic.” The words pregnancy alternative helped to soften the blow of what she was really promoting. So it is with those who refer to the founders as “non-religious” or “free-thinkers” etc. It does not represent the Biblical point of view, which is of great concern since Jesus said:
“He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words,
hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken,
the same shall judge him in the last day.” (John 12:48)
Ultimately, all men will be judged according to the Word of God; so our service toward mankind is to inform them of how their condition is viewed in the sight of God. Imagine a doctor telling a man that he has some “respiratory irregularity,” when the truth is that he has lung cancer! Does the doctor do a service to a dying man by misleading him?
I am reminded of a popular TV show, “The Biggest Loser,” about overweight people who are brought to a work out camp for weight loss. At some point, these people are made to sit down with a doctor, who often informs them that if they do not lose the necessary weight, they will die in a short time. Often, those who are given such news weep, and are shocked to hear the report. Nevertheless, it is that very shock that compels them to do something about it. A patient needs to know the dire nature of his condition so that he will be compelled to act. Where spiritual matters are concerned, we must seek the Great Physician for an examination of how the beliefs of deists and freethinkers should be viewed.
Judge Not?
Whenever discussions come up about the faith of others, some will often object and cry out that it is wrong to question. “If someone claims to believe God, or says they have faith in Christianity, we ought to take them at their word,” they say. But according to the Bible, it is in no way wrong to examine the faith of those who claim to be Christians. If anything, the fault is in failing to exercise discernment. We are not expected to politely accept a confession, especially if we are given cause to doubt it. On the contrary, we are told:
“Beware of false prophets …” (Matthew 7:15)
“Take heed that no man deceive you …” (Matthew 24:4)
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether
they are of God …” (1 John 4:1)
In the articles that follow, we will examine some of the beliefs of the key founding fathers, whose own words prove that these men were not Christians and had no intention of founding a Christian country. As you read the words of these men, consider how their so-called “faith” would be viewed in the sight of God. How does the Word of Life judge their testimonies? Remember this passage:
“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?
He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)
Reader Comments (2)
I am greatly disturbed by what I saw and read about Barton's misquoting of John Adam's letter regarding the "Holy Ghost...artifice and cunning..."
I am willing to investigate, but I am still hesitant to throw out the Christian base of our Constitution and the majority of our Founding Fathers "not really Christian." I am willing to change my mind, but due to the dire straights our nation is in and the fact that I have attempted to run for Congress and am contemplating trying again, would you mind giving my campaign website a thorough browse and tell me what facts I have posted that need to be corrected, please?
I am one of those "dupes" that believes in the Trinity- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I am also one of those patriots who was duped into believing I was "defending the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic" who now wants this country to face the truth and do proper T'shuva. However, it seems I am a bit confused as to who I can trust on "either side of the church aisle," so to speak.
Please research my website and correct me where I am wrong. Note: this site was from last year's Republican Primary. As of today, 4/9/11, I haven't made any changes, but will update it if I choose to run next year as an Independent.
www.jeffpritchardforcongress.com
Also, tell me your thoughts on Christians running for office as I have attempted to do and may do again. I just found you and your site. Are you for or "agin" Christians running for office? Do you agree with my call for T'shuva as a political aspirant and potential Congressman, or do you agree with my former Libertarian challenger that it has no place in the public political discourse?
I'd like to know you and your readers' thoughts.
Thank you.
David Barton does never talk about Protestant England. Below is a copy of the Royal Declaration which is English history which is American heritage.
You know when you understand England outlawed Transubstantiation,(Jesus cookie) idolatrous and superstitious religion. Ya get the idea they had enough of the tyrants of Rome. I find that is the main difference with America and England. Now the Constitution and bill of rights makes it legal(which was illegal in England) practice idolatrous and superstitious religions. The American government made it legal to eat the Jesus cookie, build all the statues(obelisks) and to practice superstitious religions. We have to ask the question did the American government outlaw the tyrants, are did we make it legal for tyrants? You know there are a lot of books written. Truth is not a popular. Look at God's word in modern times. Now it is no surprise why it is not read and followed. I am working on a page base around this question.
What kind of government did the American Revolution provide for America?
A. Protestant Government
B. Universal Government
C. Christian Government
D. Christian & Protestant Government
History tells us the answer, but isn't it amazing how many people would miss this question if asked. What I find interesting is, the secular world might get it right. But the Protestant and Christian right in America have been lead down a dead end. I am so thankful that God has given us eyes to see and ears to hear.
English history is American heritage. If you don't know English history you will never understand American history. It is brilliantly been just left out of history. History gives us the answer to this Question. Real history tell us of the past, that makes the present make sense and lets us prepare for the future.
ty·rant(A Jesuit)
1.a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly.(the pope using divine right, remember divine right comes from the Vatican)
2.any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically. (Inquisition, dark ages)
3. a tyrannical or compulsory influence.(gun power plot, it was the Jesuits who pull off 9/11. Who did they arrest for the gun power plot)
4. an absolute ruler, especially one in ancient Greece or Sicily(Pontifex Maximus, meaning high priest, the pope)
"When tyrants cannot prevail by craft, they burst forth into open rage" Footnote from the Geneva Bible.
Royal Declaration
This is the name most commonly given to the solemn repudiation of Catholicity which, in accordance with provisions of the "Bill of Rights" (1689) and of "the Act of Succession" (1700), every sovereign succeeding to the throne of Great Britain was, until quite recently, required to make in the presence of the assembled Lords and Commons. This pronouncement has also often been called "The King's Protestant Declaration" or "The Declaration against Transubstantiation" and (but quite incorrectly) "The Coronation Oath". With regard to this last term it is important to notice that the later coronation oath, which for two centuries has formed part of the coronation service and which still remains unchanged, consists only of certain promises to govern justly and to maintain "The Protestant Reformed Religion established by Law". No serious exception has ever been taken by Catholics to this particular formula, but the Royal Declaration, on the other hand, was regarded for long years as a substantial grievance, constituting as it did an insult to the faith professed by many millions of loyal subjects of the British Crown. The terms of this Declaration, which from 1689 to 1910 was imposed upon the sovereign by statute, ran as follows:
1912 Catholic Encyclopedia
"I, A. B., by the grace of God King (Or Queen) of England, Scotland and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever, and without any dispensation already granted me by the Pope, or any other authority or person whatsoever, or without any hope of any such dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person or persons, or power whatsoever, should dispense with or annul the same or declare that it was null and void from the beginning."