Happy Reformation Day!

With all the focus on costumes and candy, one would think that Halloween is the only significant event of any importance occurring on this date. But today is a day which had more impact on our history than almost any other besides the death and birth of Jesus. And not just for Christians, but for all Western Civilization as we know it.

On October 31st, in the year 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door at Wittenburg, Germany. Because of his bold actions on that day and on others, the people were eventually set free from subservience to the papal doctrines of salvation by works.

After a particularly frightening experience during a thunderstorm in which he was almost struck by a lightning bolt, Luther became a monk. He faithfully practiced a life of fasting, prayer, confession and “holy” pilgrimages, as this was the practice of the day for Christians. But all this only served to make him more aware of his own inability to overcome his sinful nature.

“I lost hold of Christ the Savior and Comforter,” he once lamented, “and made of him a stock-master and hangman over my poor soul.” His Christian life had turned into a life of despair and uncertainty.

Having earned several high religious degrees and a teaching position by his early thirties, he came to the realization that, according to Scripture, Christians were justified by faith alone and not by works as the church of that day was teaching. He wrote a letter to Albert, the Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg protesting the sale of indulgences. With the letter, he included his 95 Theses, titled Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, which challenged the church to examine it’s doctrines of salvation and it’s practices for raising funds for building it’s churches.

Luther had come to believe that salvation was attainable through sincere faith in Jesus Christ as savior and not by works. By the end of 1571, the 95 Theses had been widely circulated throughout Europe. By 1520 Luther had published three of his best works. Three years after his letter and Theses were delivered, Rome responded to Luther’s writings with a papal bull calling for his excommunication unless he recanted particular written statements within 60 days. Luther burned the papal bull publicly in Wittenberg on the 10th of December, 1520, and was subsequently excommunicated on January 3rd, 1521.

While Luther remains a controversial figure because of some of his writings, his actions nonetheless were the pivotal point for all Christendom. It is a wonderfully liberating day to celebrate for anyone who calls Jesus their Lord and Savior.

Let’s share the gospel with those who come to our doors this evening seeking edible sweets – let them know of the sweetness of Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

The first and chief article is this: Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised again for our justification (Romans 3:24-25). He alone is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), and God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6). All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits, by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood (Romans 3:23-25). This is necessary to believe. This cannot be otherwise acquired or grasped by any work, law, or merit. Therefore, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us … Nothing of this article can be yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth and everything else falls (Mark 13:31).

Martin Luther, in the Schmalkald Articles

Luther After His Death - Photograph by Paul T. McCain

True Colors… The Blatant Arrogance of Eugenics

What do Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, and James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA’s double helix, have in common? They both are believers in eugenics.

I’m sure there were many shocked gasps as the story unfolded about the very famous Nobel Prize-winning scientist, James Watson (who was the co-discoverer of DNA’s Double Helix) making the statement that he believes Africans and Europeans have different levels of intelligence. No really. He did make that statement.

Watson was quoted in the London Sunday Times as saying that he did not hold out much hope for Africa, because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”

“This is not the first time Watson’s speaking engagements have caused a stir.” The article goes on to say that “The Independent catalogued a series of controversial statements from Watson, including one in which he reportedly suggested women should have the right to have abortions if tests could determine their children would be homosexual.”

Oh really? I guess he’s counting on finding a homosexual gene for that…

Again, Watson was speaking at the University of California, Berkeley, when he postulated about a possible link between the amount of melanin in skin and a person’s sex drive.

“That’s why you have Latin lovers,” he said, according to some attendees of the lecture. “You’ve never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient.”

What must people think about these types of prejudiced statements by such a supposedly enlightened evolutionary scientist? How can someone who allegedly is so well educated hold such antiquated views about people from ethnic backgrounds different from his?

Let me put forward I believe some of the fault lies with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. The book’s original title was, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”

The Preservation of favoured races… I would have to assume that “favored races” means for all species, including man. This is an underlying theme for Darwin’s theory. Consider the time period the theory was written in. Whites and blacks were not considered equals in any sense of the word. I’m pretty sure that almost all people in that day thought that way, save a few very passionate abolitionists, both Christian and non-Christian. It was, after all, 1859. But Darwin, with all his “progressive scientific” ideas, was more popular than one would have thought, even in such conservative times.

Things have changed, haven’t they? Maybe not so much. Liberal social groups sometimes use derrogatory statements or photos to get their point across without regard of their appropriateness or their racially inflammatory inferences. For example, below is a photo displayed at a recent “peace” rally:

Sign at a Peace Rally

If a conservative group had displayed a similar sign with a black democratic leader compared to a simian, chances are it would have made headlines worldwide, and debated for weeks on mainstream media outlets, with angry black leaders screaming for an apology (and rightly so!). But this derrogatory, blatantly racist poster was not only displayed in the “peace” rally, it went no further because it suited their liberal agenda and it’s purposes at the time. In other words, the mainstream media ignored it.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was another big fan of Darwin’s theory and the theories that sprang from the philosophies of Darwin’s disciples. Havelock Ellis was one of Margaret’s many lovers, and he was also a protege’ of Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin and the man who systemized eugenic philosophy.

Dr. George Grant, in his shocking 1995 expose’ of the Margaret Sanger the public really doesn’t know titled Killer Angel, says, “…it was not simply politics or sentiment that drew Margaret into the eugenic fold. She was thoroughly convinced that the ‘inferior races’ were in fact ‘human weeds’ and a ‘menace to civilization.’

Dr. Grant goes on to assert, “Her greatest aspiration was ‘to create a race of thoroughbreds’ by encouraging ‘more children from the fit, and less from the unfit.’ And the only way to achieve that dystopic goal, she realized, was through the harsh and coercive tyranny of Malthusian Eugenics.”

Page exerpt from Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review

Once Margaret gained a semblence of stature in Eugenics and socialist circles, she made good use of some of the most hated and powerful figures in history. One of Margaret’s close friends and advisors had also been an advisor to an infamous tyrant murderer named Hitler. Ernst Rudin, who was Hitler’s director of genetic sterilization, wrote an article which Margaret happily published in 1933 titled “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need”.

Margaret Sanger held deep resentments toward those she considered “weeds”, and those resentments were fueled into a hatred which spurred her to begin a whole new movement to cleanse society of those she considered inferior. The Birth Control Review which she edited and her organization, the Birth Control League, was the predecessor for today’s abortion mills run by Planned Parenthood.

Approximately 94% of Planned Parenthood’s abortuaries are located in poor, urban areas predominately populated by blacks. Since 1973, a full 13 MILLION blacks have been aborted, with a remaining population of about 31 million… this is about the equivilant of one out of every four black children being killed. (http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html)

Abortion advocates decry attempts to connect much of Sanger’s philosophy with their present goals as an organization. However, recent statements by Planned Parenthood claim to be proud of it’s history and the heritage that Margaret Sanger left for them. Faye Wattleton, one of Planned Parenthoods past presidents, said,

“As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our courageous leader, we should be very proud of what we are and what our mission is. It is a very grand mission; abortion is only the tip of the iceberg.” Faye Wattleton, president Planned Parenthood Federation of America, speech, February 5, 1979.

It makes me wonder what the rest of the iceberg looks like.

Is this the pervasive opinions of evolutionist believers? Probably not across the board. However, the theory of evolution cannot avoid the implications of their theory on society and societies moral choices. Do other organizations also have such inauspicious beginnings? Are there ulterior motives for other types of scientific studies or organizational ethics?

Watson’s comments were not necessarily only a product of his belief in Evolution, but also of the more sinister philosophy of eugenics. Eugenics is the marriage of certain scientific opinions and how they effect some people’s views regarding the inherent value of other human beings. It also gave some people the idea that humans can be genetically perfected, which in kind meant that in order to achieve human perfection, sub-standards would need to be eliminated. Many times, Watson indicated he would like to see certain types of people “genetically eliminated”, such as fat people, stupid people, etc. This would be assuming that genetic markers could be found for each of these “genetic maladies.” It is the basis for a pseudo-science called transhumanism, whereas humans can be engineered for certain genetic strengths. Watson wanted to use genetic markers to eliminate those he deemed inferior. He has been quoted as saying he believed in selective abortion for women who were pregnant with those who would be predisposed to homosexuality, assuming again that a genetic marker for this “abnormality” could be discovered through genetic testing. Other incidences involving Watson indicated a prejudice against people effected by autism and other mental disorders. Apparently he thinks people like himself with their gangly feet stuck in their big mouths are perfectly fine.

It is essential to know our history. All of it. We can’t rely only on what is written in school text books for a full understanding of our past, since more often than not there are political and social agendas that tend to help rewrite history. Not everything is as it seems… everybody has their skeletons. And everybody has their true colors. Just watch closely enough and long enough and eventually they will come out.

The Bible puts all humans on a level playing field. It says that God created man in His own image. The New Testament indicates that in Christ, all are equal and gives equal dignity to both free and slave, male and female, etc. “All are one in Christ Jesus.” Christianity assumes that all human beings are designed for dignity. This is why pro-life organizations are predominately Christian. Many Christians were very active in the Abolitionist movements of earlier centuries, such as William Wilburforce.

“Africa! Africa! Your sufferings have been the theme that has arrested and engages my
heart—your sufferings no tongue can express; no language impart.” William Wilburforce In his 1792 motion for the abolition of the slave trade.

“I confess to you so enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did its wickedness appear,
that my own mind was completely made up for the abolition.” William Wilburforce Speech on abolition of slave trade on May 12, 1789.

Apparently, Wilburforce had a much better hope for Africa then than Watson does now.

For more info, check out these sites:

A site for the history of the American Eugenics Movement:

and an active eugenics site promoting these ideas:

The Godless would deny and destroy human rights …. the liberties of a nation cannot be secure when belief in God is abandoned.

U.S. Senate Chaplain Richard Halverson

Alarm Bells Should Be Going Off Now… A 2007-08 NEA Resolution and New California Law

This blog comment was posted on one of my many social networking sites I like to frequent… I felt it had significance for this forum in that many of my Christian friends are also homeschoolers. I will post what my friend Carla posted, and then my reply to it that I believe connects the NEA statement and another recent event regarding law…

The National Educational Association in their 2007-2008 Resolutions has taken a stand against homeschooling.

It reads “The National Education Association believes that home schooling programs based on parental choice cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience. When home schooling occurs, students enrolled must meet all state curricular requirements, including the taking and passing of assessments to ensure adequate academic progress. Home schooling should be limited to the children of the immediate family, with all expenses being borne by the parents/guardians. Instruction should be by persons who are licensed by the appropriate state education licensure agency, and a curriculum approved by the state department of education should be used.

The Association also believes that home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools. The Association further believes that local public school systems should have the authority to determine grade placement and/or credits earned toward graduation for students entering or re-entering the public school setting from a home school setting.”

Statistics have shown that homeschooled students do exceptionally well. They excel (and win) spelling bees, score high on tests like the SAT, and go on to be accepted into many colleges. One Source: http://www.chec.org/Legislative/News/HomeschoolingStatistics/Index.html

Homeschoolers also find benefits in co-op classes contrary to the NEA belief that students should only be instructed by their immediate families.

Take a moment to tell the NEA that homeschooling is a real option that does produce wonderfully rounded and educated members of society.

And my post:

Thanks for sharing this, Carla. I hope that people see the agenda in this statement, and understand the underlying motives for making such a statement. Namely, they are losing federal monies for each student pulled out of their godless system and that they want to have total control over all students in the U.S. in the same way that the socialist government schools have total control over students in Germany, where parents can be put in jail for trying to homeschool their children, especially for religious reasons.

If anyone noticed, California just passed a law prohibiting the use of the words “Dad” and “Mom” in the public school system… ON ALL LEVELS…. which means that these words will be extracted from all textbooks (Hmmm, do you think the textbook publishers will complain about that?)

Swartzy also signed into law that boys can now use the girls locker rooms and restrooms – and visa versa. Think about that. That includes the showers, folks.

Swartzenegger has been pushed to the public as if he is a conservative republican, when in reality he is not. He is a fiscal conservative in many ways, but otherwise he is a RINO. Passing this type of legislation off as law proves that.

The resolution from the NEA is geared to try and force Christians to be subject to all policies deemed appropriate by the state. If someone in a position of power takes this NEA resolution statement and runs with it, everyone could be in real trouble.

Unless there is a huge outcry by Christians about these issues, one day we will wake up and have to hand over our kids for the government to raise. (Of course that is a bit of an exaggeration, but not really.)

Go here to hear commentary on the California law that passed…


Going, Going, Gone…

I cannot for the life of me remember where I found this, but I just had to share…


My best dream come true.

The Threat of Creation

Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed!

There has been a concerted effort on the part of the atheistic community to not only stifle but to villify people of faith, particularly people who are in the scientific community who hold a faith in God, or in any higher power, and who attribute findings in their field to an intelligent designer.

As Chuck Colson observed in one of his recent articles, (see article prior to this entry) it is not so much atheists anymore, but more and more it is ANTI-theists… these are the ones who would love all religion to be thrown out of the public forum. To them, the biggest threat to their agenda are Christians, especially professionals and influential advocates of any worldview other than their own.

So much for freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Isn’t that sort of what the Communists did in Russia? Boy, living like that sure would be a treat. Don’t we all just love to be told what to do and what to think. Or else.

In February of 2008, a documentary style film titled “Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed” will be released into theaters. Starring Ben Stein, it’s goal is to expose the monopolistic Evolutionist camp and it’s intimidation of scientists who do not hold the same opinions or worldviews as they do. I highly recommend it to anyone who believes in freedom of thought and academic freedom.

(For trailer go to http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ – but read this first!)

Now, I’m not saying throw the anti-theist Evo’s out on their ears, much as I think they deserve it, but I do believe institutions of higher learning should stop telling students WHAT to think and begin teaching them HOW to think for themselves. This will not happen if large bodies of vital scientific work are ignored due to philosophical differences.

On that note, I will post this blog entry from Dr. George Grant, founder and president of the Kings Meadow Study Center… (one of the most humorous smart people I know.)

The Threat Of Creation

By Dr. George Grant
(From his blog Grantian Florilegium on Friday, October 12th, 2007…Reposted with permission from author)

A resolution adopted by Europe’s top human rights body last week declared that the idea of “Creationism” is a potential “threat to human rights.”

On October 4, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted 48 to 25 in support of the resolution entitled the dangers of creationism in education in which the legislative body urged its 47 constituent governments to “firmly oppose” the teaching of Creationism, arguing that such beliefs are “promoted by forms of religious extremism” seeking to “to impose religious dogma “ at the expense of children’s “education. “

“For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life,” stated the report. “Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of Creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, Creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.”

The report, which had been moderated significantly since it was first introduced a few months ago by those great champions of freedom and integrity around the world, the French Socialists, also charged Creationists with denying the validity of modern science. Indeed, “the total rejection of science,” the revolutionary do-gooders said, “is one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.” It then added that those threats came as Creationists sought to “replace democracy by theocracy.”

Of course, the European legislators did not offer any evidence whatsoever for their brazen assertions—these brave new heroes of a brave new liberty, equality, and fraternity apparently just assume that any questioning of presuppositional and dogmatic Darwinism necessitates a wild-eyed totalitarianism that has only ever existed historically in their own fevered-dreams (and in their own modernist revolutionary governments). Such lawmakers rarely allow the dumb certainties of experience to deter them from blindly pursuing their ribald ideological agendas.

As Dinesh D’Souza has argued, “This is not a time for Christians to turn the other cheek. Rather, it is a time to drive the money-changers out of the temple. The atheists and radicals no longer want to be tolerated. They want to monopolize the public square and to expel Christians from it. They want political questions like abortion to be divorced from religious and moral claims. They want to control the school curricula, so that they can promote a secular ideology and undermine Christianity. They want to discredit the factual claims of religion, and they want to convince the rest of society that Christianity is not only mistaken but also evil. They blame religion for the crimes of history and for the ongoing conflicts in the world today. In short, they want to make religion–and especially the Christian religion–disappear from the face of the earth.“

Dr. Grant’s Blog: Grantian Floriegium

Viewpoint: The New Chicken Littles

The Unfounded Fears of Atheists Today – by Chuck Colson

Didn’t you know? The Southern Baptist Convention is going to take over the U.S. government! So says Kevin Phillips, author of American Theocracy—one of many anti-theist writers jumping on the bestseller-list gravy train. Well, although at least one commenter on our blog, The Point, jokingly nominated me for U.S. president, I don’t see us becoming one nation under the Southern Baptist Convention—amusing as that notion is. Nevertheless, as Ross Douthat wrote last year in First Things, anti-theocrats “assume that the most extreme manifestation of religious conservatism must, by definition, be its most authentic expression.” So we Christians are all theocrats? That’s what today’s militant atheists—or anti-theists, as I call them—would have the world believe.

Do you attend church every Sunday? Oppose gay “marriage”? Vote pro-life? Believe students should be allowed to learn intelligent design in school? Well, then of course, you are a theocrat—don’t deny it. You want to take over American government and force everyone to believe and act as you do.
Sound ridiculous? Paranoid? It is. With a profound ignorance of the Christian faith, anti-theists are cashing in on the many atheist rants topping today’s bestseller lists. In truth, paranoid books by atheists are nothing new (think of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale). However, today they are enjoying particularly lucrative returns from their tirades. I am sure you have seen them: Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon; Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion; Chris Hedges’s American Fascists; Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation; Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great; among others. This is what used to be called in antitrust law conscious parallelism. These writers are aware that these books are selling (more than a million copies last year alone), so it encourages one atheist after another to make his case. (Can you hear the cash registers?)

In case you may still be scratching your head about that term—theocracy—likely because it is foreign to everything you believe, let me define it for you. As Douthat wrote in his article “Theocracy! Theocracy! Theocracy!”—an amusingly written column I recommend that you read—theocracy “is often used to connote government by a specific institutional faith.” Of course, the first thing you must think of is sharia law in the Middle East (and the second, “That’s not me!”). But a sort of Christian sharia is exactly what anti-theists are accusing believers of wanting to establish in America. And so they run around like so many Chicken Littles, publishing their tirades and warning that the sky is falling on democracy.

These unfounded fears may be amusing, but after we stop chuckling, we need to realize that this is a serious matter—because it is not Christianity that poses a threat as grave as radical Islam, but rather today’s neo-atheism.

What is significant here is that this is not old-line atheism. Traditionally, atheists were very serious and legitimate scholars who enjoyed sitting around in their ivy-covered towers, smoking their pipes in their tweed jackets, and discussing philosophical positivism and all of the technical processes that one advances in the process of philosophical inquiry. And they would come to what they saw as very rational conclusions: that you could not prove God, nor could you disprove Him, but the evidence weighed against Him, or there was no evidence to support the existence of God. Bertram Russell would be typical of this genre of atheists. He was almost reluctant about it. As I quoted him in my latest book, God and Government, he really wished there were a God; he just could not establish it on philosophical grounds.

The new breed however, is, as Christopher Hitchens describes himself, not just atheistic but anti-theist. They are setting out not just to disprove on philosophical grounds the existence of God or to prove that there is no basis philosophically for believing in God. They are setting out to try to purge the country of this “dangerous delusion” of religion. They think God is bad for you, to borrow Hitchens’s title. They think we should have a law, Dawkins says, that prohibits the teaching of religion to your kids, because it is dangerous to teach your kids to believe in something when there is nothing to believe in.

I think they are emboldened by the rise of radical Islam. The Islamists, which gave us the Taliban, jihads, terrorist attacks, and September 11—all in the name of religion, by the way—give all people of faith a bad name. And you will notice that a number of these writers, particularly those writing about theocracy, have borrowed the critique of Islam and its fanatical religion and transposed it and applied it to Christianity.

What is interesting—and telling—though is that if a religious voice echoes their own political views, then they praise religious involvement in public life. For example, as Douthat noted, a few weeks before columnist Gary Wills wrote in the New York Times that “Christian politics” was a contradiction in terms, he praised the role of the clergy in the civil rights movement, declaring that “there was a time, not so long ago, when religion was a force for liberation in America.” Similarly, Michelle Goldberg, author of Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, intimated that liberals should hope that “leaders on the Religious Left will find a way to channel some of America’s moral fervor into a new social gospel.” Which is it—in or out for religious contribution?

What should Christians do when faced with the accusation of being a theocrat? First of all, we need to see through this and understand the agenda here. The agenda is not atheism; it is anti-belief. It is postmodernism carried to its logical conclusion. It is dangerous only because it has become the latest fad in publishing.

Second, remind people of great Christian leaders of the past whose work—informed and inspired by their faith—led to a better life for everyone: like William Wilberforce and the end to the slave trade, child labor, among many other things; Martin Luther King, Jr., and the civil rights movement; and today, recent Wilberforce Award winner Gary Haugen, who has fought to expose and end the evil of sexual trafficking.

Lastly, remember, Christians could never be theocrats because we believe in free will. Freedom is a God-given quality. So to put one in submission to religion, any religion, would be contrary to our belief about the nature of our Creator. If we were theocrats, we would not be Christians. Besides, as Douthat concludes, “no movement can claim to have arrived at the perfect marriage of religious faith and political action. Christianity is too otherworldly for that, and the world too fallen.” You can share that fact about our faith when these books come up in conversation with friends and neighbors.

And we need to be proactive in sharing the truth about the Christian faith. Because as Gina Dalfonzo writes in this month’s cover article, the new atheists are changing cultural attitudes toward Christians. If those militant atheists get their way, we may not get the opportunity to set the record straight and be heard in the public square—or engage a lost neighbor in conversation if anti-theists make up his mind first. And as we have seen happen in Europe, the less religious a society becomes, the more emboldened radical Islamists become. And that is a theocracy we do not want in place.

Chuck Colson is the founder of PFM and author of many books, the latest of which is God and Government. His new book about orthodox Christianity, The Faith, will be published by Zondervan and available in February. His other books include The Good Life (with Harold Fickett), Being the Body (with Ellen Vaughn), How Now Shall We Live? (with Nancy Pearcey), and Born Again.

To read more great articles or to sign up for the Breakpoint e-newsletter, go here:


Massacre of Innocence (Exerpt)

By Eric Holmberg

Part 1

There is much medical evidence that human life begins early in the development of a fetus. At only six to eight weeks of development it is obvious that the developing fetus is not “a blob of tissue,” as pro-abortionists would like us to believe, but a remarkably developed baby boy or girl.

But medical and scientific evidence is not our primary source of Truth. The Word of God, the Bible, must be our source for determining the sanctity of life from the moment of conception. In fact, the very name of God points us in the direction of the sanctity of life from the time it is conceived in the womb.

Let’s first briefly review what the Bible says about human life in the womb.

The Bible tells us in Exodus 34 verses 5 through 7, the name of the Lord followed by the revelation of His character and nature, Jehovah Rachum, or “God is merciful.”
The root of the Hebrew word for “merciful,” rachum, and “mercy,” rachamim, was the first aspect of God’s character to be revealed to the prophet Moses on Mount Sinai.

Racham is also the root of the word in Hebrew for “womb” rachum. The womb then, in its original Hebrew context, is the center or seat of mercy, the place from which the child, being formed in the image of God, is conceived, formed, nurtured and born.

Jesus declared in Matthew 5:7, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” But the converse is also true. When men, for their own convenience, would send their swords into that place of life and mercy, defiling the sanctity of life within the recham the womb turning it from its purpose, it may be necessary to consider Christ’s declaration of the wages earned by those who take up the sword: “Those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).

It is no coincidence that Jesus, the Messiah, would be conceived in a womb and born of a woman after a full term pregnancy.

We need look no further than the story of Jesus’ conception to see that life is indeed sacred from the womb. Christ himself was both fully man and fully God from the moment of His conception.

“And the angel answered and said to her: ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God'” (Luke 1:35).

We see the sanctity of life in the womb outlined clearly in the Gospel according to Luke 1:26-41. Shortly after Christ’s conception was revealed to Mary through the angel Gabriel, Luke tells us: “Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leapt in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.”

In Luke 1:26, we are told that Jesus was conceived exactly six months after Elizabeth’s son, John the Baptist. It was John who leapt in the womb at the greeting of Mary and the coming of the preborn Savior into the house of his father, Zechariah.

Jesus had to be somewhere within the first trimester of pregnancy the time when 88 percent of the abortions in our nation are performed when John “leapt in the womb” at the arrival of the Savior.

It is also interesting to consider that the first “Gospel message” was preached at the coming of Christ while He was still in the first trimester of development. The “Good News” was initiated by the preborn infant John proclaiming the divinity of the baby Jesus that the Savior had come into the world.

It is clear throughout the Scriptures that life begins at conception in the womb.

“For Thou didst form my inward parts. Thou didst weave me in My mother’s womb. I will give thanks to Thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalms 139:13).

“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. And before you were born I consecrated you” (Jeremiah 1:5).

“… the Lord who made you and formed you in the womb …” (Isaiah 44:2).

According to Scripture, abortion is a sin against God a violation of the sixth commandment,
“You shall not murder.” It is the wanton killing of innocent human life in the womb a place designed by God to be a refuge of life and mercy.


This was an exerpt from “Massacre of Innocence”, a video production by Eric Holmberg of The Apologetics Group/Reel to Real Ministries. Although produced in 1985, this video has been digitally remastered (2006) and would be a great resource for any pro-life ministry or educational program.

You can purchase this DVD from Eric’s website:


Nietzsche Would Laugh – Morality without God

A Breakpoint article by Charles Colson.

October 9, 2007

One of the biggest obstacles facing what’s called the “New Atheism” is the issue of morality. Writers like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens have to convince people that morals and values are possible in a society that does not believe in God.

It’s important to understand what is not in doubt: whether an individual atheist or agnostic can be a “good” person. Of course they can, just as a professing Christian can do bad things.

The issue is whether the secular worldview can provide a basis for a good society. Can it motivate and inspire people to be virtuous and generous?

Not surprisingly, Richard Dawkins offers a “yes” — grounded in Darwinism. According to him, natural selection has produced a moral sense that is shared by all people. While our genes may be, in his words “selfish,” there are times when cooperation with others is the selfish gene’s best interest. Thus, according to him, natural selection has produced what we call altruism.

Except, of course, that it is not altruism at all: It is, at most, enlightened self-interest. It might explain why “survival of the fittest” is not an endless war of all against all, but it offers no reason as to why someone might give up their lives or even their lifestyle for the benefit of others, especially those whom they do not even know.

Darwinist accounts of human morality bear such little resemblance to the way real people live their lives that the late philosopher Michael Stove, an atheist himself, called them a “slander against human beings.”

Being unable to account for human altruism is not enough for Sam Harris, author of LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION. In a recent debate with Rick Warren, he complained about Christians “contaminating” their altruistic deeds in places like Africa with “religious ideas” like “the divinity of Jesus.” Instead of rejoicing at the alleviation of suffering, he frets over someone hearing the Gospel.

In response, Warren pointed out the inconvenient (for Harris, that is) truth: You won’t find many atheists feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick in places like Africa or Mother Teresa’s Calcutta. It is precisely because people believe in the divinity of Jesus that they are willing to give up their lives (sometimes literally) in service to those whom Jesus calls “His brothers.” And that’s why my colleagues and I spend our lives ministering in prisons.

In contrast, the record of avowedly atheistic regimes is, shall we say, less than inspiring. Atheist regimes like the Soviet Union, Red China, and Cambodia killed tens of millions of people in an effort to establish an atheistic alternative to the City of God. For men like Stalin and Mao, people were expendable precisely because they were not created in the image of a personal God. Instead, they were objects being manipulated by impersonal historical forces.

One atheist understood the moral consequences of his unbelief: That was Nietzsche, who argued that God is dead, but acknowledged that without God there could be no binding and objective moral order.

Of course, the “New Atheists” deny this. Instead, they unconvincingly argue that you can have the benefits of an altruistic, Christian-like morality without God.

Nietzsche would laugh — and wonder why they don’t make atheists like they used to.

(This is part two in a five-part series.)

Get links to further information on today’s topic

Living As If People Matter

By Dr. George Grant

The Gospel calls us to live as if people matter. It calls us to live lives of selfless concern. We are to pay attention to the needs of others (Deuteronomy 22:4). We are to demonstrate concern for the poor (Psalm 41:1). We are to show pity toward the weak (Psalm 72:13). We are to rescue the afflicted from violence (Psalm 72:14). We are to familiarize ourselves with the case of the helpless (Proverbs 29:7), give of our wealth (Deuteronomy 26:12-13), and share of our sustenance (Proverbs 22:9). We are to “put on tender mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, and longsuffering” (Colossians 3:12). We are to become “a father to the poor,” and are to “search out the case of the stranger” (Job 29:16). We are to love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:31) thus fulfilling the law (Romans 13:10). It is only as we do these things that we are able to earn the right to speak authoritatively into people’s lives.

In writing to Titus, the young pastor of the pioneer church on the island of Crete, the Apostle Paul pressed home this basic truth with persistence and urgency. In the midst of a culture marked by deceit, ungodliness, sloth, and gluttony (Titus 1:12), Titus was not only to preach grace and judgment, he was also to make good deeds a central priority in his ministry. He was to exercise charity. Paul wrote, “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works” (Titus 2:11-14).

This was a very familiar theme for Paul. It wasn’t aimed exclusively aimed at the troublesome Cretan culture. For instance, he had earlier written to the Ephesian church with essentially the same message, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:8-10).

God saves us by grace. There is nothing we can do to merit His favor. Because of our sin, we stand utterly condemned. Thus, salvation is completely unearned and undeserved. But, we are not saved capriciously, for no reason and no purpose. On the contrary, we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works. We are His own possession, set apart and purified to be zealous for good works.

Our concern for others begins right in church pew—as we greet one another, extend hospitality to one another, and meet the needs of one another. As the Westminster Confession asserts, “Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities. Which communion, as God offers opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.”

In addition though, we are to extend the love and care of Christ to others as well. We are to love as Christ loves, sacrificially, substantially, and sincerely. In other words, we are to live as if people really do matter.

May God grant us this kind of love. May this, the final apologetic (John 13:35), be the hallmark of our lives, our families, and our churches.

Dr. George Grant is the president of King’s Meadow Study Center in Franklin, Tennessee, as well as an accomplished author and lecturer. You can find out more about the ministry of George Grant at KingsMeadow.com.

Reprinted with permission from the author.

Bible Battles: King James vs. the Puritans

I thought this was an interesting article on the history of the KJV and how it became the “Authorized” version…
Done by the Religious Studies dept of the University of Wyoming.

Religion Today Column for Week of Oct. 7-13

(Religion Today is contributed by the University of Wyoming’s Religious Studies Program to examine and to promote discussion of religious issues.)

Bible Battles: King James vs. the Puritans

By Paul V.M. Flesher

King James VI of Scotland was raised as a Presbyterian. Even though his mother, Mary Queen of Scots, had been a Catholic, he was baptized by a Calvinist figure no less prominent than John Knox, sent by John Calvin to Scotland.

You would think that when James ascended to the English throne in 1603 that he would have been sympathetic to the English Puritans, for their beliefs also derived from Calvin and his teachings. Instead, within a year of becoming King James I of England, he initiated a project that would attack the Puritans. This project was a new Bible translation; he called it the Authorized Version, but in America it became known as the King James Version.

Why would a Bible translation have this effect? The answer lies in the character of the national English Church, the Anglicans, which derived from two important events in the 1530s.

First, John Calvin began preaching in Geneva. His increasingly popular ideas argued that all aspects of the Catholic Church had misled Christianity. From its theology and Bible to its hierarchy, ritual and pageantry, the Church needed to be reformed. He left the Catholic Church to form a new one following his teachings.

Second, King Henry VIII of England also broke with the Catholic Church in the 1530s. He was not interested in reform or even in theology; he just wanted a divorce. Since the Pope would not give him one, Henry declared that the English church would become independent, with himself as the Church’s head.

It was not until Queen Elizabeth I, Henry’s daughter who ruled from 1558 to 1603, that the Anglican Church underwent reform. Elizabeth set a tone of compromise early in her reign. The English would adopt some of Calvin’s theological positions, but they would keep the hierarchy and much of the ritual. The end result was a church with both Protestant and Catholic characteristics.

While many liked this compromise, there was a growing number who did not. These people became known as the Puritans. They did not like the compromise but wished instead to follow Calvin’s lead in banishing all Catholic elements from the church. They wished to “purify” Anglicanism.

The Puritans had their own Bible translation, the Geneva Bible. Not only was it small, and therefore inexpensive, but it also had extensive notes that explained biblical passages using Puritan theology. Since this Bible was the only book many people owned or read, it was effective in winning people over to Puritan theological beliefs and keeping them there.

Although most of the notes were innocuous or “merely” radical Calvinist theology, other notes argued against current political and religious structures. In particular, Calvinism believed in neither the divine right of kings to rule, a belief strongly promoted by James, nor that the church should be governed by bishops, but rather by presbyters elected by congregations. The former angered the king, while the latter incensed the Anglican hierarchy.

To combat this subversive Bible, James and the bishops decided to create a new Bible translation. James authorized the new translation with a decree that included several guidelines for the translators. The most significant of these was the command to have no notes in the text (apart from short remarks about translation from Hebrew or Greek). This stricture prevented remarks linking the biblical text to unwanted theological perspectives and political positions.

After the King James Version was published in 1611, the Geneva Bible was banned in England. Indeed, James made ownership of it a felony. The King James Bible became the pulpit Bible for Anglicans and inexpensive copies were published for sale to the masses. At first, it was not very popular; several of its early publishers went broke from poor sales.

The King James Version began to gain popularity only when different publishers began to add explanatory notes to the text, in direct opposition to James’ expressed wishes. The KJV became the most popular Bible version in 20th-century America when a set of notes written by Cyrus I. Scofield was added in 1909 and then revised in 1917 into the Scofield Reference Bible. These notes promote the theology of dispensationalism, based in part on Calvinist theology that James rejected, and have helped promote that theology’s popularity, just as the Geneva Bible promoted Puritan theology.

Flesher is director of UW’s Religious Studies Program. Past columns and more information about the program can be found on the Web at http://www.uwyo.edu/relstds.

To comment on this column, visit http://religion-today.blogspot.com. Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007