https://americanvision.org/Recent content The American VisionHugo -- gohugo.ioen-usAll rights reserved.Fri, 10 Jul 2026 08:56:29 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/episode-100-dating-the-book-of-revelation/Fri, 10 Jul 2026 08:56:29 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/episode-100-dating-the-book-of-revelation/<p><strong>Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope-Episode 100</strong></p> <p><em>Gary <a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/dating-the-book-of-revelation" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">discusses</a> the date of the writing of the book of Revelation.</em></p> <p>Quite a bit of diversity existed in early Christianity regarding the date that John wrote the book of Revelation, and the dominance of one opinion is not synonymous with unanimity of opinion.</p> <p>Several writers in recent years have noted that markedly different opinions about the date of Revelation abounded among early Christian writers. For example, Adela Yarbro Collins took notice of “traditions about the date of Revelation” that “were apparently independent of Irenaeus.” More recently George Wesley Buchanan wrote that in the church fathers “there is no consistent agreement on the precise time when John lived and wrote.” In an earlier book (<em><a href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/new-testament-eschatology-what-the-early-church-believed-about-bible-prophecy" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">NT Eschatology</a></em>), I categorized these various opinions regarding the date of Revelation under different headings, from “very early,” e.g., the time of Claudius, (41–54 A.D.) to “very late” during the reign of Trajan (98–117 A.D.). This chapter and the next expand significantly upon that research.</p> <p>These two chapters will provide passages from ancient and medieval texts, showing that there were at least ten different traditions favoring a date of the book of Revelation before 70 A.D. These interpretations all predate the seventeenth-century commentary of Luis Alcasar, which is regarded by many as the first preterist commentary of Revelation.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/files/RFCfr_large.png?v=1779468036" alt="Revelation and the First Century"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>Revelation and the First Century</h3> <p>Criticisms against preterist interpretations of the book of Revelation elicit questions: Did any early and medieval Christian writers interpret the visions of Revelation in a preterist manner? Are preterist interpretations of the book of Revelation a modern, seventeenth century invention, as is claimed by some? This book answers these questions by providing selections from ancient and medieval commentaries on the book of Revelation, writings composed long before the seventeenth century. Many of these selections are translated into English here for the first time. All of the selections reflect the fact that some Christians in ancient and medieval times interpreted visions in the book of Revelation in a preterist fashion.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/revelation-and-the-first-century" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Gary discusses the date of the writing of the book of Revelation. Joel Richardson recently claimed that the historic church has primarily been premillennial in its eschatology and has held to a &ldquo;late date&rdquo; (around AD 95) for the writing of the book. Is this correct?</p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/dating-the-book-of-revelation" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here for today’s episode</a></p> <p><a href="https://americanvision.org/categories/microscope/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here for all episodes of Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope</a></p>https://americanvision.org/posts/pastors-and-the-pulpit/Thu, 09 Jul 2026 08:05:49 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/pastors-and-the-pulpit/<p>For decades, pastors have been timid about preaching politics from the pulpit. The Old Testament prophets would have been stunned by such timidity. Many modern-day churches believe they have good biblical reasons for not addressing politics. They believe they are prohibited from doing so because it will jeopardize their tax-exempt status. It won’t, but even if it did, so what? Faithfulness to the Bible is every Christian’s calling regardless of the financial consequences, including the loss of your church’s tax exemption. Such a development might clear out the “almost Christians.” Then there are the typical arguments for non-involvement that I deal with in my book <em><a href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/myths-lies-and-half-truths" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths</a></em>.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/mlht1_large.png?v=1365620692" alt="Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths</h3> <p>Like the Bereans of Paul’s day (Acts 17:11), Christians should check the veracity of all opinions against the only reliable standard of authority that God has placed in our hands: the Bible. This may mean a change in belief systems for some. There is no novelty in this. God confronted Peter directly about the inclusion of Gentiles into the household of faith (10:9–16). Paul confronted Peter “to his face” on a similar matter (Gal. 2:11–14). There are times when we all need to be knocked off our horse of mistaken opinions (Acts 9:4). “Testing” is a biblical mandate (2 Cor. 13:5; 1 John 4:1).</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/myths-lies-and-half-truths" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Ministers of another era saw it as their biblical duty to preach about politics from the pulpit because the Bible addressed every sphere of life, including civil government. Harry Stout opens a window into the colonial era by pointing out the effect preaching had on the young nation:</p> <blockquote> <p>Over the span of the colonial era, American ministers delivered approximately 8 million sermons, each lasting one to one-and-a-half hours. The average 70-year-old colonial churchgoer would have listened to some 7,000 sermons in his or her lifetime, totaling nearly 10,000 hours of concentrated listening. This is the number of classroom hours it would take to receive ten separate undergraduate degrees in a modern university, without ever repeating the same course!</p> <p>The pulpits were Congregational and Baptist in New England; Presbyterian, Lutheran, and German Reformed in Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and Anglican and Methodist in the South. But no matter the denomination, colonial congregations heard sermons more than any other form of oratory. The colonial sermon was prophet, newspaper, video, Internet, community college, and social therapist all wrapped in one. Such was the range of its influence on all aspects of life that even contemporary television and personal computers pale in comparison.<strong>[1]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>These colonial pastors were aware of the politics of the day, both in America and in their country of origin. Many of them made the trek to the New World for political reasons. It was Old World preaching on the nature and limits of civil government that led the Pilgrims to embark on an effort to create “a city on a hill.” These early founders brought their worldview preaching to an unknown but promising new land. “They hoped—and this was the point of the New World mission—that England would take note of this decentralized but still coherent ‘nation’ and imitate it. In the meantime, New Englanders would keep the covenant alive in their own corner of the New World and signify that fact on election day.”<strong>[2]</strong> It is no less true today.</p> <p>All discussions of the duties of the citizenry and those called to minister in the civil sphere must begin with the Sovereign God of Scripture. Any opinion that civil government is an autonomous work of nature cannot be supported by a faithful reading of the Bible. There is no neutral “social contract” whereby men and nations agree to legitimize civil government. The “social contract” theory of the origin of civil government is the religion of Babel (Gen. 11).</p> <p>Family, church, and civil governments are not contractual. For example, marriage is a divine government, instituted by God at creation (Gen. 2:22-25). The covenant that men and women make in marriage is modeled after the divine relationship, the duties of which are set forth in Scripture. The husband, therefore, is to model his love for his wife after the love Jesus has for the church, giving Himself up for her (Eph. 5:25).</p> <p>Ecclesiastical government (church government) results from Christ’s institution. Jesus declared that it is <strong>His</strong> church that is to be built (Mat­t. 16:18). When Christians establish local churches, the divine blueprint must be followed. There are earthly rulers in the church (Acts 20:28; Heb. 13:17), but Jesus is the head (Eph. 5:23). There are many locales where churches operate, but the living Christ is their authority (Matt. 28:18; Rev. 2:12-17).</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/godandgovt_large.png?v=1608039906" alt="God and Government"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>God and Government</h3> <p>The work of reviving America is far from finished, and Americans need to hear—now more than ever—the biblical and historical truths explained in God and Government. American Vision has thoroughly renovated, revised, and updated Gary DeMar’s monumental work into this beautiful one-volume hardback. With a fresh new look, more images, an extensive subject and scripture index, and an updated bibliography, God and Government is ready to prepare a whole new generation to take on the political and religious battles confronting Christians today. May it be used in a new awakening of Christians in America—not just to inform minds, but to stimulate action and secure a better tomorrow for our posterity. </p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/god-and-government" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>As in family and ecclesiastical governments, civil government is an extension of God’s rule over nations: “For the kingdom is the Lord’s, and He rules over the nations” (Psalm 22:28). “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God” (Rom. 13:1). The specifics of civil government, like those of marriage and ecclesiastical governments, are outlined in Scripture. Governmental principles do not flow “naturally.” They are ordained by God.</p> <p>Four primary duties proceed from the biblical model established for civil government:</p> <p><em>First</em>, the people must understand their obligations as citizens. Because governmental power is God-ordained, certain obligations are part of the governmental process. There can be no autonomy among citizens. Even those who we would not consider to be within the orbit of orthodox Christianity understood that human autonomy was dangerous.</p> <p><em>Second</em>, those who minister in the civil arena must understand that they derive their authority from God. Civil government is not an independent government outside the jurisdiction of God’s sovereign rule. But rulers are not directly chosen by God as were Moses and Joshua (Num. 12:1-8; Deut. 34:9-12). God made provision for the ratification of leaders through a godly citizenry.</p> <p><em>Third</em>, in a Christian society, the people endorse those who rule by voting them into a civil office, and they confirm the laws they enact by keeping them in office. This is why Jethro instructed Moses to “teach [the people] the statutes and the laws and make known to them the way in which they are to walk, and the work they are to do” (Ex. 18:20).</p> <p><em>Fourth</em>, there is no legitimate claim to a “divine right” whereby rulers can enact law. Civil laws must be in terms of God’s revealed law. It is important to note that citizens, especially Christian citizens, must question unbridled and autonomous political power. This is why at the death of Solomon “Jeroboam and all the assembly of Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam” about the tyrannical rule of the king (1 Kings 12:3). A Christian society, as a “holy” and “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5, 9; cf. Ex. 19:6), must confront the unrighteous in civil government in terms of God’s law and their limited governmental authority.</p> <p>The influence of the <em>divine right doctrine</em>, “which assumes that divinely ordained authority is beyond questioning, is not a biblical doctrine.” For example, the apostle Paul questioned the authority of the existing Roman government (Acts 16:22-40). “The divine right of kings gave way, for many, to the divine right of husbands, an equally pernicious idea. Indeed, all legitimate authority is established by God, but this does not entitle authorities to the unquestioning obedience God alone is entitled to. <em>All</em> human authorities are to be obeyed <em>in the Lord</em>, i.e., in terms of a questioning and devout attention to the word of God as superior to man.”<strong>[3]</strong></p> <p>Christians are obligated to obey those in authority; leaders are required to rule in terms of God’s Word, but no earthly authority must be obeyed in <em>all</em> cases. There are times when “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Again, the Bible is our guide. Human government, therefore, resides under the control of God. Justice reflects the righteousness of God, while the need for retribution reflects the sinfulness of man. The temporal powers, when exercising authority as a ministry of justice, must know and enforce the parameters of justice. This makes for the working of a just society (not a perfect society). There is to be no biased judgment; no favorable treatment under the law; no partiality in judgment. Righteousness is the standard.</p> <blockquote> <p>Just as God, the supreme Judge, is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25) and is Himself absolutely righteous, so too those who exercise governmental authority on earth are required to display impartiality towards all with­out exception — otherwise they show themselves to be betray­ers of the power entrusted to them and despisers of the law they administer. Thus the judges of Moses’ time were solemnly charged, “You shall not be partial in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of man, <em>for the judgment is God’s</em>” (Deut. 1: 7).<strong>[4]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>In this way, citizens and civil representatives know the extent of their jurisdiction. Freedom and security prevail under such a system when the people realize rulers “do not judge for man but for the Lord” (2 Chron. 19:6). The fear of the Lord should guide the heart of all who rule. Citizens have a duty to remind rulers that “the Lord our God will have no part in unrighteousness, or partiality, or the taking of a bribe” (v. 7).</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/RFC-front_large.png?v=1603236877" alt="Restoring the Foundation of Civilization"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>Restoring the Foundation of Civilization</h3> <p>There are many Christians who will not participate in civilization-building efforts that include economics, journalism, politics, education, and science because they believe (or have been taught to believe) these areas of thought are outside the realm of what constitutes a Christian worldview. Nothing could be further from the truth.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/restoring-the-foundation-of-civilization" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>The Bible gives many examples of Christians involving themselves in the political process. Many Christians consider politics a dirty business, an area where Christ has no business. If politics is “dirty,” it becomes necessary for Christians to involve themselves. Here are a few examples of political involvement from the Bible. Noah, as an agent of the civil mag­istrate, is given authority to execute murderers (Gen. 9:1-7); Joseph is made ruler in Egypt (41:38ff.); Israel is kept in bondage by a political ruler who sets himself up in opposition to the kingdom of God (Ex. 1:8; 5:1-21); God gives instructions to both priests and kings (Deut. 17:14-20); the book of Judges shows the interrelationship between religion and rule; 1 Samuel 8 shows how the rejection of God as Israel’s true King leads the people to choose an earthly king as a substitute (an attempt to equate the State with the kingdom of God); the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles tell the story of the rise and fall of kings and kingdoms; and individual kings are singled out for special counsel (Jer. 38:17-28). The list could go on.</p> <blockquote> <p>That God is vitally concerned with political affairs is quite easy to demonstrate: it is God who ordained governments in the first place (Rom. 13:1; Rom. 2:21). He is the One who establishes particular kings (Prov. 16:12; Psa. 119:46, 47; 82:1, 2). Therefore, He commands our obedience to rulers (Rom. 13:1-3). Rulers are commanded to rule on His terms (Psa. 2:10ff. ). Even in the New Testament activity of political import is discoverable. Je­sus urged payment of taxes to <em>de facto</em> governments (Matt. 22:15-22). In response to reminders of King Herod’s political threats against Him, Jesus publicly rebuked the king by calling him a vixen (Luke 12:32). He taught that a judge is unjust if he does not fear God (Luke 18:2, 6). John the Baptist openly criticized King Herod (Luke 3:19, 20). Peter refused to obey authorities who commanded him to cease preaching (Acts 5:29). The Apostle John referred to the Roman Empire as “the beast” (Rev. 13).<strong>[5]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>The denial of political involvement is the denial of most of the Bible. Christians are responsible for acting righteously as citizens and, if God so calls, for participating in politics in a ministerial capacity. Every regenerate man is a priest, a minister of God (Isa. 61:6; 66:21; 1 Peter 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6). Citizenship is closely tied to righteousness. Jesus Christ is King of the church and “Lord of lords and King of kings” (Rev. 17:14).</p> <hr> <p>[1] Harry S. Stout, “How Preachers Incited Revolution,” <em>Christian History</em>, Issue 50 (Spring 1996), 3.</p> <p>[2] Harry S. Stout, <em>The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England</em> (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 29.</p> <p>[3] Rousas J. Rushdoony, <em>Salvation and Godly Rule</em> (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1983), 390-391.</p> <p>[4] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, <em>Christian Ethics in Secular Society</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983), 185.</p> <p>[5] Kenneth L. Gentry, “The Greatness of the Great Commission,” in <em>The Journal of Christian Reconstruction</em>, Symposium on Evangelism, ed. Gary North, 7:2 (Winter 1981), 45.</p>https://americanvision.org/posts/billionaires-and-trillionaires/Wed, 08 Jul 2026 07:36:21 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/billionaires-and-trillionaires/<p><em>Gary <a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/billionaires-and-trillionaires" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">responds</a> to recent criticisms about certain rich people in America and whether they &ldquo;need all that money.&rdquo;</em></p> <p>The modern world has debased its coinage. No nation’s mint issues silver coins as common coinage—only as collectibles. By the mid-1960’s, silver coins were replaced by central bank counterfeits.</p> <p>In 1965, most money was not coinage, as is true today. Most money was a combination of paper currency and bank checks. Printed currency of any denomination all looked alike. The “dross” was paper and ink, worth a few cents. The “silver” was the face value of the bill. The central bank’s profit—mark-up—on printing these bills was enormous. The governments had laws against printing counterfeit bills, but their central banks printed nothing but counterfeit bills. What held this process in check was the threat that people could bring in their paper money or write checks and get gold coins. That ended in Europe in late 1914: World War I. It ended in the United States in 1933. It ended for silver coins in the United States in 1964. (Note: in the summer of 1963, I converted almost all of my money into silver coins, which I got at a bank at face value. By the end of the summer, these coins started going out of circulation as a result of Gresham’s famous law: “Bad money drives good money out of circulation.”)</p> <p>Today, most money is digital. <em><strong>All digital money is counterfeit money</strong></em>. We do not even see the money any longer. We use pieces of plastic. Computers communicate with each other. Counterfeit money is morally wrong. It is a form of theft. But economists do not like to invoke ethics in their analysis of economic cause and effect. They also do not like to criticize theft by civil governments as theft, for that brings up this ethical issue: “Thou shalt not steal” (Exodus 20:15). It does not say, “Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.”</p> <p>Henry Hazlitt followed the lead of Ludwig von Mises. He used the word “inflation” to refer to fiat money creation. He did not use it to describe the <em>result</em> of fiat money creation: rising prices. Isaiah preceded both of them in this regard (see Isaiah 1:22-24). He identified the evil of inflating—and it <em>is</em> evil. Mises did not mention ethics and economics together. Neither did Hazlitt. Murray Rothbard did. He always labeled inflating as theft.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/CEfront_large.png?v=1611238392" alt="Christian Economics in One Lesson"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>Christian Economics in One Lesson</h3> <p>Christian Economics in One Lesson is Dr. North's reworking of Henry Hazlitt’s classic introduction to economic thought, Economics in One Lesson. That book set the standard as an introductory economics book. Nothing has come close to replacing it ever since it was first published in 1946. Christian economics must begin with the issue of ultimate ownership. This sets it apart from modern economic analysis, which begins with the issue of scarcity. Second, this leads to the issue of theft, which in turn raises the issue of ethics.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/christian-economics-in-one-lesson" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Gary responds to recent criticisms about certain rich people in America and whether they &ldquo;need all that money.&rdquo; This is beside the point, aside from the fact that most critics are using technology created by billionaires to voice their opposition. It all comes down to the two Es: Eschatology and Economics.</p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/billionaires-and-trillionaires" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here for today’s episode</a></p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast</a></p>https://americanvision.org/posts/some-thoughts-on-americas-christian-heritage/Tue, 07 Jul 2026 08:23:18 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/some-thoughts-on-americas-christian-heritage/<p>In 1783, at the close of the war with Great Britain, a peace treaty was ratified that began with these words: “In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God King of Great Britain.”<strong>[1]</strong> The treaty was signed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay. Keep in mind that it was Adams who signed the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli.</p> <p>In 1822, the United States, along with Great Britain and Ireland, ratified a “Convention for Indemnity Under Award of Emperor of Russia as to the True Construction of the First Article of the Treaty of December 24, 1814.”<strong>[2]</strong> It begins with the same words found in the Preamble to the 1783 treaty: “In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity.” Only Christianity teaches a Trinitarian view of God. There doesn’t seem to be any reluctance on the part of the American signers to affix their names to it.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/cachfr_large.png?v=1675169569" alt="The Case for America&#39;s Christian Heritage"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>The Case for America&#39;s Christian Heritage</h3> <p>Even some of our nation’s Founders who did not identify as Christians could not escape the impact the Bible had on our nation’s founding and the moral precepts that held the fledgling nation together. America’s Christian heritage is writ large in its state Constitutions, charters, laws, symbols, and repeated stated reliance on the overruling providence of God.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/case-for-americas-christian-heritage" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>The 1848 Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits and Settlement between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic, the peace treaty between the United States and Mexico that ended the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), begins with “In the name of Almighty God.” The treaty also states that both countries are “under the protection of Almighty God, the author of peace&hellip;.”<strong>[3]</strong></p> <p>During the War for Independence, George Washington wrote the following to Brig. General Thomas Nelson:</p> <blockquote> <p>“The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.”<strong>[4]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>As President, Washington stated that “it is the duty of all <em>nations</em> to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” He went on in his Thanksgiving Proclamation of October 3, 1789, to write that as a nation “we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great <em>Lord and Ruler of Nations</em>, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions.”<strong>[5]</strong> Professor Stone’s contrary evidence is at best hearsay. Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation is direct evidence that he was no deist. When a person offers “prayers and supplication,” he expects some sort of response. There is no response possible for the deist who operates as an absentee landlord. In his Farewell Address of 1796, Washington stated the following:</p> <blockquote> <p>Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, <strong>religion and morality are indispensable supports</strong>. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: <strong>Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice</strong>? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, <strong>reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle</strong>.</p> </blockquote> <p>Notice the connection between religion and morality, and how they lead to “political prosperity.” While noting that there are “slight shades of difference,” the people “have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles.” This “same religion” was Christianity.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/acr_large.jpg?v=1452623830" alt="American Christian Rulers"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>American Christian Rulers</h3> <p>Reprinted for the first time since 1890, this newly typeset edition of Rev. Edward J. Giddings’s biographies of nearly 200 American statesmen recalls a time in American history when the citizens of this republic made no distinction between the personal morality and public service of their leaders.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/american-christian-rulers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <hr> <p>[1] Malloy, <em>Treaties, etc.</em>, 1:586.</p> <p>[2] Malloy, <em>Treaties, etc.</em>, 1:634.</p> <p>[3] Malloy, <em>Treaties, etc.</em>, 1:1107.</p> <p>[4] George Washington’s letter of August 20, 1778, to Brig. General Thomas Nelson, in John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., <em>The Writings of George Washington</em> (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), 12:343.</p> <p>[5] George Washington, “Proclamation: A National Thanksgiving,” <em>A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1902</em>, ed. John D. Richardson, 11 vols. (Washington, DC: Bureau of National Literature and Art, 1907), 1:64.</p>https://americanvision.org/posts/an-eschatological-worldview/Mon, 06 Jul 2026 07:17:18 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/an-eschatological-worldview/<p><em>Gary <a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/an-eschatological-worldview" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">reveals</a> that he is considering having a prophecy conference in the Nashville area next summer.</em></p> <p>2 Corinthians 7 begins: “Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (v. 1). “These promises” were made to <em>Israel</em>, and yet Paul applies them to the <em>church</em> at Corinth (1:1).</p> <p>There is no mention of a postponement of the promises first made to Abraham. These Jewish believers, the recipients of the promises spoken by the prophets (Acts 3:24), made up “the church” (5:11). So then, when Gentiles were grafted into the existing all-Israelite <em>ekklēsia</em>, they took part in the same Israelite promises. Dispensationalists have to maintain that this was never God’s plan. Citing Isaiah 57:19, Paul assures Israelites and non-Israelites who are in Christ, “and He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near” (Eph. 2:17). The New Testament <em>ekklēsia</em> was always God’s plan!</p> <p>Dispensationalists still maintain that there are unfulfilled promises for Israel. Where in the New Testament does it say this? Not a single New Testament writer offers a caveat to their claim that the promises have been fulfilled. We have to ask the dispensationalist when these unfulfilled promises are going to be fulfilled. It can’t be during the so-called church age since, as dispensationalist Thomas Ice states, “We dispensationalists believe that the church has superseded Israel during the current church age, but God has a future time in which He will restore national Israel ‘as the institution for the administration of divine blessings to the world.’” When will this divine blessing to the world take place? It can’t take place “during the current church age” since God, according to Ice, has replaced Israel with the church. It’s not going to take place during the dispensationalist’s version of the Great Tribulation since there will be a mass slaughter of Jews and even greater destruction to the world. Will it be during the “millennium”? Revelation 20 doesn’t say anything about the promises being finally fulfilled since there is no mention of Israel or the land of Israel.</p> <p>If the dispensationalists are correct, then the New Testament writers were awfully confused, in spite of the fact that they, like their Old Testament counterparts, were under the direct inspiration of the infallible Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Of course, we know they weren’t confused in the least. If they had wanted to make such a distinction between Israel and the “church” they certainly would have used a word other than <em>ekklēsia</em>, which possessed a <em>continuity of meaning</em> spanning both the Old and New Testaments of the Greek Bible.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/files/10PMfr_large.png?v=1726012494" alt="Ten Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed and Answered"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>Ten Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed and Answered</h3> <p>Since the reestablishment of Israel in 1948, “end-time” prophetic speculation has been on the rise. While there is a long history of date setting, the past century has seen an exponential increase in the number of books proclaiming that the end is near. It’s time that the “Boy who cried wolf” syndrome be dealt with in a biblical way.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/ten-popular-prophecy-myths-exposed-and-answered" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Gary reveals that he is considering having a prophecy conference in the Nashville area next summer. Why is this necessary and what will be taught? Listen to today&rsquo;s episode to learn much more about what Gary has in mind for this potential event.</p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/an-eschatological-worldview" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here for today’s episode</a></p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast</a></p>https://americanvision.org/posts/episode-99-how-literal-are-the-literalists/Fri, 03 Jul 2026 08:25:36 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/episode-99-how-literal-are-the-literalists/<p><strong>Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope-Episode 99</strong></p> <p><em>Gary <a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/how-literal-are-the-literalists" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">points out</a> that no one interprets purely &ldquo;literally,&rdquo; although many prophecy speculators claim that they do.</em></p> <p>Jesus often uses the plural &ldquo;you&rdquo; in Matthew 24 and in the parallel passages in Mark 13 and Luke 21: “They will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for My name’s sake” (Luke 21:12; see verses 13-20, 28, 30; Acts 12:1, 20; 25:13, 24, 26).</p> <p>Now, if you heard Jesus say that all these things would happen to “this generation” while you were standing there listening to Him, and in every other instance of its use “this generation” meant the present generation, and you also heard Him say that when “you” would see these things, what would you conclude? The most natural (literal) interpretation is that it would happen to your generation, and maybe even to you personally (Matt. 16:27-28). Again, if it were a future generation, we would expect Jesus to have said, “when they see … they will bring them … they will persecute them.”</p> <p>This overwhelming evidence does not phase futurists. Stanley D. Toussaint writes that “the second person plural may be employed of those who are not contemporaries.” (Notice that he says “may be.”) He turns to Matthew 23:35 for support. In this passage, Toussaint argues, “the Lord Jesus referred to the death of Zechariah and says, ‘whom you murdered.’ Obviously Zechariah was killed centuries before Christ.” Note that Jesus makes it clear that He is referring to the contemporary generation of Jews who heard His message of judgment. The “you” refers to them as Toussaint admits, regardless of who murdered Zechariah. It was their generation that “filled up the measure of the guilt” begun by their fathers (23:32). Jesus tells us that “you” refers to them. The “you” does not refer to a past generation of murderers. Nowhere are we told that “you” refers to anyone but them. The burden of proof is on Toussaint to prove otherwise. And since there is a great deal of speculation as to the identity of this Zechariah, it is possible that they had indeed killed him.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/LDM-front_large.png?v=1572279906" alt="Last Days Madness"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>Last Days Madness</h3> <p>In this authoritative book, Gary DeMar clears the haze of "end-times" fever, shedding light on the most difficult and studied prophetic passages in the Bible, including Daniel 7:13-14; 9:24-27; Matt. 16:27-28; 24-25; Thess. 2; 2 Peter 3:3-13, and clearly explaining a host of other controversial topics.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/last-days-madness" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Gary points out that no one interprets purely &ldquo;literally,&rdquo; although many prophecy speculators claim that they do. The book of Revelation says in the very first chapter that the book is &ldquo;signs,&rdquo; not actual events and beings. In reality, interpreting the Bible &ldquo;literally&rdquo; means to interpret what it says in terms of the type of &ldquo;literature&rdquo; it is written in, whether historical narrative, poetry, apocalyptic, etc.</p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/how-literal-are-the-literalists" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here for today’s episode</a></p> <p><a href="https://americanvision.org/categories/microscope/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here for all episodes of Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope</a></p>https://americanvision.org/posts/thomas-paine-and-the-american-founding/Thu, 02 Jul 2026 07:15:48 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/thomas-paine-and-the-american-founding/<p>Thomas Paine is often called a Founder of the American Republic. But is it the Paine of <em>Common Sense</em> or the Paine of <em>The Rights of Man</em> (1791) and <em>The Age of Reason</em> (1793-94)? Since <em>Common Sense</em> was written on the eve of the Revolution and <em>The Rights of Man</em> and <em>The Age of Reason</em> were written after the ratification of the Constitution, we should begin with <em>Common Sense</em>. Paine’s <em>Common Sense</em> put forth arguments for independence from Great Britain. How did he argue his case? What were his sources?</p> <p>A. J. Ayer remarks that “the first argument that Paine brings against the institution of kingship is scriptural.”<strong>[1]</strong> Paine declared that “government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from which the children of Israel copied the custom&hellip;. As the exalting of one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings [Judges 8:22-23; 1 Sam. 8]. All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. ‘Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s’ is the scriptural doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.”<strong>[2]</strong></p> <p>Paine has an extended discussion of Judges 8:22–23 where he describes “the King of Heaven” as Israel’s “proper sovereign.”<strong>[3]</strong> He then spends several pages quoting, discussing, and applying the importance of 1 Samuel 8 to the modern situation. He concludes this section of <em>Common Sense</em> with these words: “In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) by the world in blood and ashes. ’Tis a form of government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it.”<strong>[4]</strong> See the Appendix to my book <em>The Case for America’s Christian Heritage</em>.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/cachfr_large.png?v=1675169569" alt="The Case for America&#39;s Christian Heritage"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>The Case for America&#39;s Christian Heritage</h3> <p>An Illustrated Journey of Our Nation's Providential Beginnings. America’s original founding was rooted deeply in the things of Jesus Christ and His kingdom. The original charter given to Sir Walter Raleigh by Queen Elizabeth I in the 16th century was to establish “the true Christian faith.” John Rolfe at Jamestown sought to “advance the Honor of God and to propagate his Gospel.” The faithful Christians who wrote the Mayflower Compact stated that their mission was “for the Glory of God and advancements of the Christian faith.”</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/case-for-americas-christian-heritage" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>It seems that some historians trim this bit of history from Paine’s body of work. Instead, he only quotes from his later publications, which are anti-Christian but not atheistic. Consider his views of creation from his 1787 “Discourse at the Society of Theophilanthropists in Paris”:</p> <blockquote> <p>It has been the error of schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the Author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles; he can only discover them, and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author. When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well-executed statue, or a highly-finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talent of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How, then, is it that when we study the works of God in creation, we stop short and do not think of God? It is from the error of the schools in having taught those subjects as accomplishments only and thereby separated the study of them from the Being who is the Author of them&hellip;. The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator Himself, they stop short and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existence. They labor with studied ingenuity to ascribe everything they behold to innate properties of matter and jump over all the rest by saying that matter is eternal. And when we speak of looking through nature up to nature’s God, we speak philosophically the same rational language as when we speak of looking through human laws up to the power that ordained them. God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon. But infidelity, by ascribing every phenomenon to properties of matter, conceives a system for which it cannot account and yet it pretends to demonstrate.<strong>[5]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Could the above comments by Paine be worked into the curriculum of today’s public schools? I doubt it.</p> <p>How much support did Paine get from the Founders in his later works, where he repudiated the Bible and Christianity but remained a theist? John Adams called him a “blackguard.” Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.”<strong>[6]</strong> In his Introduction to <em>Common Sense</em>, Gregory Tietjen wrote that Paine’s “explicit expressions of disbelief roused the faithful to fury and earned Paine an enmity that destroyed the good reputation he enjoyed for his earlier activities in behalf of the American cause. . . . [H]is polemics against President Washington had lost him the loyalty of many patriots, and his religious beliefs had earned him the wrath of the Christian faithful.”<strong>[7]</strong> Even the usually tolerant Quakers refused him burial in a Quaker graveyard.</p> <p>Geoffrey Stone, professor of law at the University of Chicago, describes the views of the later Paine as “shockingly blunt and ‘politically incorrect’ to modern ears, but they were in fact the views of many of our most revered Founders. The fable that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation is just that—a fable.” Paine’s <em>Common Sense</em>, with its biblical arguments from the Old and New Testaments, is direct testimony that Stone is incorrect.</p> <p>Mark A. Noll, a research professor of history at Regent College, argues, “If Paine’s <em>Age of Reason</em> (with its dismissive attitude toward the Old Testament) had been published before <em>Common Sense</em> (with its full deployment of Scripture in support of republican freedom), the quarrel with Britain may have taken a different course. It is also likely that the allegiance of traditional Christian believers to republican liberty might not have been so thoroughly cemented. And it is possible that the intimate relation between republican reasoning and trust in traditional Scripture, which became so important after the turn of the new century, would not have occurred as it did.”<strong>[8]</strong></p> <p>Robert Royal comments that “for Paine—a skillful polemicist whose attachment to Christianity was always uncertain and seems eventually to have evaporated—to use an argument such as this at a delicate moment testifies, at the very least, to the power of religious arguments for liberty in America.”<strong>[9]</strong> John Orr’s remarks that Paine received a “cold reception &hellip; when he returned from France after publishing his deistic book <em>The Age of Reason</em>.” This reaction “does not suggest that deism was as popular in America as some” historical accounts “might lead one to suppose.”<strong>[10]</strong></p> <p>The answer to Paine’s <em>Age of Reason</em> was <em><strong><a href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/the-age-of-revelation-the-age-of-reason-shewn-to-be-an-age-of-infidelity" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">The Age of Revelation: The Age of Reason Shewn to be an Age of Infidelity</a></strong></em> by Elias Boudinot. In 1779, he was elected to the Continental Congress and then to its successor, the Congress of the Confederation, serving as President of Congress in 1782-1783, during the war&rsquo;s final years.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/ageofrevelation__99178.1286483642.1280.1280_large.jpg?v=1371644638" alt="The Age of Revelation"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>The Age of Revelation</h3> <p>Paine is considered to be an American Founding Father, and yet, unlike Paine, Boudinot actually served in a civil capacity in the United States that included work on the Constitution. Paine's only elective office was in France. Boudinot is a true American Founding Father. Paine had no role in the founding conventions of America and their documents. Boudinot waited some time before deciding to respond to Paine's Age of Reason. His measured rejoinder to Paine's work is contemplative and, contrary to Paine's treatise, a work of sound scholarship. A great deal of thought and humility went into the well-argued reply.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/the-age-of-revelation-the-age-of-reason-shewn-to-be-an-age-of-infidelity" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>After being elected to the first, second, and third U.S. Congresses, where he served from 1789 to 1795, Boudinot was appointed director of the United States Mint by President Washington and held the position through 1805 under the presidencies of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Boudinot, a devout Presbyterian, spoke out frequently against slavery, both as a member of Congress and as a private citizen. In 1816, he helped found the American Bible Society and served as its first president for five years. Paine’s only elective office was in France.</p> <hr> <p>[1] A.J. Ayer, <em>Thomas Paine</em> (New York: Atheneum, 1988), 40. Ayer remarks that his appeal to the Old Testament is curious “in view of the want of respect he was later to show for the Old Testament” (40).</p> <p>[2] Thomas Paine, <em>Common Sense</em> (New York: Barnes &amp; Noble, [1776] 1995), 10.</p> <p>[3] Paine, <em>Common Sense</em>, 11.</p> <p>[4] Paine, <em>Common Sense</em>, 11-14.</p> <p>[5] Thomas Paine, <em>Life and Writings of Thomas Paine</em>, ed. Daniel Edwin Wheeler, 10 vols. (New York: Printed by Vincent Parke and Company, 1908), 7:2-8, “The Existence of God,” A Discourse at the Society of Theophilanthropists, Paris. Also see Thomas Paine, “Discourse Delivered to the Society of Theophilanthropists at Paris” in <em>The Theological Works of Thomas Paine</em> (London: R. Carlile, 1818), 4-5.</p> <p>[6] William V. Wells, <em>The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams</em> (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1865), 3:372-373. Letter to Thomas Paine on November 30, 1802.</p> <p>[7] Gregory Tietjen, “Introduction,” <em>Common Sense</em>, xii.</p> <p>[8] Mark A. Noll, <em>America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln</em> (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 84.</p> <p>[9] Royal, <em>The God that Did Not Fail</em>, 216.</p> <p>[10] John Orr, <em>English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1935), 219.</p>https://americanvision.org/posts/the-founding-of-america/Wed, 01 Jul 2026 08:04:42 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/the-founding-of-america/<p><em>Gary</em> <em><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/america-began-with-the-colonies" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">discusses the early history of the colonies</a>, and how they founded their laws and constitutions on the Bible.</em></p> <p>A misconception is held by many that the drafting and signing of the Declaration of Independence was the beginning of our nation. Abraham’s Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” (Nov. 19, 1863) contributes to the confusion with the opening line: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”</p> <p>While America was not a nation of united states at the time, she was a nation nonetheless. Thirteen colonies with independent governments and intact constitutions were operating in 1776. The 52 signers of the Declaration weren’t dropped from the sky in Philadelphia on July 2. The freshly printed document announced that the thirteen American colonies, then at war with Great Britain, were now independent states, and no longer a part of the British Empire. The decision was not made lightly. Thomas Jefferson expressed the sentiments of most of his fellow Americans in a letter he had written in November of 1775 to John Randolph, who was in England at the time:</p> <blockquote> <p>Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose[s]; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.</p> </blockquote> <p>In Jefferson’s mind, there was an America before its declaration of Independence. The political ideals of those who forged a more unified nation were not developed within a worldview vacuum. Since ideas have consequences, we should expect that the beliefs of the existing colonies would have an impact on the newly formed national government, and if not, then the individual states would retain them as they did. Sadly, however, the truth about our once robust Christian heritage is being steadily dismantled.</p> <p>The early colonies’ reliance on God’s providence is nothing more than a faded memory for most Americans. If we are ever to restore what is about to be lost, we will need to learn the truth about our nation’s founding.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="http://www.americanvision.org/images/uploads/a250.png" alt="America&#39;s (More Than) 250th Celebration Pack"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>America&#39;s (More Than) 250th Celebration Pack</h3> <p>On July 4, 1620, more than 100 brave people were making plans to sail across the Atlantic Ocean to "the new world" to begin a new life. The Mayflower set sail in early September. The ship arrived in Cape Cod 66 days later in early November. The world would never be the same... ​ 156 years later, 56 brave men signed a document that declared independence from the tyrannical overreach of King George. To mark this historic 250th Anniversary, American Vision is making these NINE important books available for one great price! More than 45% off!! ​ These books prove that America began well before 1776, and her Christian history goes back centuries earlier. Our constitutional Founders inherited a nation founded by Christians and built, to use a phrase from John Adams, on “the general principles of Christianity." ​ Each is an education in history, culture, and biblical worldview, but together they form a rock-solid foundation for proper thinking about America's incredible founding and early development.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/a/bundles/americas-250th-celebration-pack-hnnh" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Every Fourth of July, we celebrate the &ldquo;birth of the United States,&rdquo; but this is not quite accurate. The nation of America was born much earlier in the colonies. Thirteen colonies with independent governments and intact constitutions were operating in 1776. Gary discusses the early history of the colonies, and how they founded their laws and constitutions on the Bible.</p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/america-began-with-the-colonies" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here for today’s episode</a></p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast</a></p>https://americanvision.org/posts/was-it-right-to-lie-to-nazis/Tue, 30 Jun 2026 07:31:30 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/was-it-right-to-lie-to-nazis/<p>A <em>World</em> magazine article (July 2026) caught my attention with the title “When Nazis are at the Door” and with this question: “Is lying ever justified?” The topic related to how to answer Nazis who asked if there were any Jews in the house. The author of this article claims that it’s never right to lie, even if the result may lead to a person’s death. But wasn’t hiding Jews rebelling against a lawful authority? Andrée Seu Peterson brings up Corrie ten Boom’s 1971 autobiographical memoir, <em>The Hiding Place</em>. It details her family’s efforts to hide Jews from the Nazis during World War II. The title refers to both the secret room in their Haarlem home where refugees were concealed and the Scriptural promise in Psalm 119:114: “You are my hiding place and my shield; I hope in Your word.”</p> <p>Why would it be OK to hide Jews but not OK to lie about hiding Jews? The ten Boom family helped save approximately 800 Jewish lives by joining the Dutch underground resistance. They were betrayed in 1944 and arrested, with Corrie and her sister Betsie sent to the Ravensbrück concentration camp. Were they “betrayed,” or did someone decide not to lie?</p> <p>Charles Ryrie, the author of the notes in the <em>Ryrie Study Bible</em>, argues that “Scripture teaches complete civil obedience on the part of Christians and does not indicate any exceptions to this principle.”<strong>[1]</strong> Is he right? Many Christians believe he is.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/bts-front_large.png?v=1601296021" alt="By This Standard: The Authority of God&#39;s Law Today"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>By This Standard: The Authority of God&#39;s Law Today</h3> <p>God's Law is Christianity's tool of dominion. This is where any discussion of God's law ultimately arrives: the issue of dominion. Ask yourself: Who is to rule on earth, Christ or Satan? Whose followers have the ethically acceptable tool of dominion, Christ's or Satan's? What is this tool of dominion, the Biblically revealed law of God, or the law of self-proclaimed autonomous man? Whose word is sovereign, God's or man's?</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/by-this-standard-the-authority-of-gods-law-today" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>There is no doubt Christians are to submit “for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14). This is the same Peter who said, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).</p> <p>As we will see, there are exceptions under certain conditions. Let’s begin with the Old Testament.</p> <p><strong>The Hebrew Midwives</strong></p> <p>The Hebrew midwives were commanded by “the king of Egypt” to put to death all the male children being born to the Hebrew women (Ex. 1:15-16). The Hebrew midwives disobeyed the edict of the king: “But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live” (1:17). The midwives had to make a choice. Did God’s law overrule the command of a king, even “the king of Egypt”? God shows His approval of their actions: “So God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied and became very mighty. And it came about because the midwives feared God, that He established households for them” (1:20-21).</p> <p><strong>Jochebed’s Deception</strong></p> <p>Jochebed, Moses’ mother, also disobeyed the edict of the king by hiding her child and later creating a way of escape for him so he would not be murdered by the king’s army: “But when she could hide him no longer, she got him a wicker basket and covered it over with tar and pitch. Then she put the child into it, and set it among the reeds by the bank of the Nile” (Exodus 2:3). Jochebed even deceived Pharaoh’s daughter into believing that she, Jochebed, was in no way related to the child (2:7-9). Surely Jochebed was right in her defiance against the evil edict of Pharaoh.</p> <p><strong>Rahab’s Lying and Spying</strong></p> <p>This example gets a lot of attention. Rahab hid the spies of Israel and lied about their whereabouts. When a route of escape became available, she led them out another way, away from the pursuing soldiers. The king issued a command to Rahab: “Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the land” (Josh. 2:3). She disobeyed a direct command of the “king of Jericho.” Some want to maintain that Rahab was right in “welcoming the spies in peace” (Heb. 11:31), but she was wrong in lying about the whereabouts of the spies. The following is a representative example:</p> <blockquote> <p>We see, therefore, that neither Scripture itself nor the theological inferences derived from Scripture provide us with any warrant for the vindication of Rahab’s untruth and this instance, consequently, does not support the position that under certain circumstances we may justifiably utter an untruth.<strong>[2]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>“Welcoming them in peace” means that they would not fall into the hands of the king of Jericho, which would have meant certain death. Rahab had changed her allegiance from Jericho to Israel. The conditions of war were operating. If she had told the truth to the men who sought the two spies, she would have been an accomplice in their deaths (<em>cf</em>. Psalm 50:18).</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/CCCset_large.png?v=1570205499" alt="The Complete Christianity and Civilization"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>The Complete Christianity and Civilization</h3> <p>The Complete Christianity and Civilization collects all four volumes of the series with a bonus book from Gary DeMar, Something Greater is Here. These five resources are a mini-library of a comprehensive Christian worldview. They will leave you amazed and wondering were they have been hiding all these years. The print versions have been long out-of-print, but they have been preserved as electronic files, which also have the added benefit of being searchable.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/the-complete-christianity-and-civilization" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Consider that camouflage is a lie. Leaving your lights on when you leave the house to give the impression that you may be home is a lie. Subverting the Nazis in the lead-up to D-Day was a lie. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Operation Mincemeat</a> was a highly successful British deception operation during World War II designed to mislead Nazi Germany regarding the true target of the 1943 Allied invasion of Sicily (Operation Husky). In 2022, the film <em>Operation Mincemeat</em> was released. It’s worth watching.</p> <p>There is another point that is often missed in this story about Rahab’s lie. “Joshua the son of Nun sent two men as spies secretly from Shittim” (Josh. 2:1). The text continues by telling us that “they went and came into the house of a harlot whose name was Rahab and lodged there.” Did they announce that they were Israelite spies? Joshua says the operation was to be done “secretly,” that is, without revealing the truth of their mission. Aren’t “spies” in the business of lying? Why was Joshua right in sending men to spy out the land, while Rahab was wrong in lying about the route the spies took? Why were the spies right in hiding and Rahab wrong in not revealing where they were hiding? Is that not an act of deception? Why didn’t they rebuke Rahab for lying? Why didn’t the spies leave by the same route as when they entered the city? Instead, they were accomplices in Rahab’s lie by allowing her to “let them down by a rope through the window” (2:15).</p> <p>Rahab is praised by two New Testament writers for her actions: “By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace” (Heb. 11:31). Rahab is listed with Abraham as one whose faith was reflected in her works: “And in the same way [as Abraham] was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works, when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?” (James 2:25). It does not say, “even though she lied.” By sending the spies out another way, she subverted the king’s desire to capture the spies. God commended Rahab. Again, the circumstances were atypical. “The critics of Rahab’s lie apparently think her case is analogous to David’s adultery with Bathsheba, a union which ultimately produced Solomon. We are not, of course, bound to praise David’s action simply because Solomon’s rule produced many desirable results (such as the construction of God’s temple). We are <em>specifically told</em> that David’s adultery was abhorrent in the eyes of God; we are <em>not so informed</em> about Rahab’s actions.”<strong>[3]</strong> Nathan’s rebuke makes that abundantly clear. “Thou art the man” (2 Sam. 12:7). In a sense, Solomon deceived the two women who claimed to be the mother of the surviving child (1 Kings 3:16-28).</p> <p>When you go out at night, do you keep a light on in the house? Some people purchase a device that turns lights on and off at random intervals to give the impression that someone is at home. This is done to mislead burglars. Isn’t this deception? Are you not lying?</p> <p>I don’t want to leave the impression that Joseph Fletcher’s situation ethics are at work here. It’s not always easy to determine when it might be OK to deceive an enemy. Sometimes the deception might lead to horrible results. The same is true for revealing the truth. Every decision must be weighed on the scales of biblical admonitions and examples. Consider the following:</p> <blockquote> <p>• God orders Israel to ambush the men of Ai (Joshua 8:3-8).</p> <p>• Jael deceives the Canaanite general Sisera (Judges 4:18-21; 5:24-27).</p> <p>• God develops a cover story to deceive Saul (1 Sam. 16:1-5).</p> <p>• Michal deceives Saul to protect David (1 Sam. 19:12-17).</p> <p>• David tells Jonathan to cover his absence by deceiving Saul (1 Sam. 20:6); Jonathan then deceives Saul to protect David (1 Sam. 20:28-29).</p> <p>• David deceives Ahimelech the priest about the mission he is on (1 Sam. 21:2).</p> <p>• David deceives the people of Gath by feigning madness (1 Sam. 21:13).</p> <p>• David deceives Achish about where he was raiding (1 Sam. 27:10).</p> <p>• David deceives Achish about his real allegiance (1 Sam. 29:8-9).</p> <p>• David tells Hushai to deceive Absalom by giving bad advice (2 Sam. 15:34); Hushai then deceives Absalom this way (2 Sam. 17:5-13), and God ensures Absalom is ruined by Hushai’s deceitful advice (2 Sam. 17:14).</p> <p>• A woman deceives Absalom’s men to save David’s men (2 Sam. 17:19-20).</p> <p>• Elisha deceives Syrians sent to arrest him (2 Kings 6:14-20).</p> <p>• Jeremiah deceives people to keep secret God’s message to Zedekiah (Jeremiah 38:24-27).</p> <p>• God says he will himself deceive false prophets (Ezekiel 14:9). (<a href="https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/is-it-ever-right-to-lie" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Source</a>)</p> </blockquote> <hr> <p>[1] Quoted in Lynn Buzzard and Paula Campbell, <em>Holy Disobedience: When Christians Must Resist the State</em> (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1984), 157.</p> <p>[2] John Murray, <em>Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics</em> (London, England: The Tyndale Press, 1957), 139.</p> <p>[3] Gary North, “In Defense of Biblical Bribery,” in Rousas J. Rushdoony, <em>The Institutes of Biblical Law</em> (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), 841.</p>https://americanvision.org/posts/americas-christian-past-and-present/Mon, 29 Jun 2026 06:51:08 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/americas-christian-past-and-present/<p><em>Gary <a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/americas-christian-history-and-present" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">discusses</a> a new book about America&rsquo;s Christian past.</em></p> <p>Our constitutional Founders inherited a nation founded by Christians and built, to use a phrase from John Adams, on “the general principles of Christianity,” even though not every religious believer at that time held to every tenet of Christian orthodoxy. Part of the problem with Throckmorton’s argument is that he views America’s founding as a determined fixed point in time, and he picks the point most convenient for his argument. The colonists who established the first colonial governments that later became the states that formed the national government would object to the late date of America’s founding. In fact, there are still remnants of that early religious founding circulating in documents, buildings, and ceremonies that organizations like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have made their living trying to eradicate.</p> <p>There was a worldview before 1787 that did not pass into oblivion when the Constitution was finally ratified in 1791, with the addition of the Ten Amendments. Many state constitutions were explicitly Christian, and all were generally religious. None of this changed with the ratification of the Constitution. In fact, today the 50 state constitutions mention God using various designations, such as “Supreme Ruler of the Universe,” “Creator,” “God,” “Divine Goodness,” “Divine Guidance,” “Supreme Being,” “Lord,” “Sovereign Ruler of the Universe,” “Legislator of the Universe,” and “Almighty God” as the most common and most biblical phrase (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; etc.). (The claim has been made that West Virginia is the exception. This is not the case.) For example, the Preamble to the Constitution of Pennsylvania, where Throckmorton taught at Grove City College, includes the following: “WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” He is correct that these religious precepts have changed over time. This is a fact not in dispute. His book, however, is misnamed. It should be titled “The Christian Past that Was.”</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="http://www.americanvision.org/images/uploads/a250.png" alt="America&#39;s (More Than) 250th Celebration Pack"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>America&#39;s (More Than) 250th Celebration Pack</h3> <p>On July 4, 1620, more than 100 brave people were making plans to sail across the Atlantic Ocean to "the new world" to begin a new life. The Mayflower set sail in early September. The ship arrived in Cape Cod 66 days later in early November. The world would never be the same... ​ 156 years later, 56 brave men signed a document that declared independence from the tyrannical overreach of King George. To mark this historic 250th Anniversary, American Vision is making these NINE important books available for one great price! More than 45% off!! ​ These books prove that America began well before 1776, and her Christian history goes back centuries earlier. Our constitutional Founders inherited a nation founded by Christians and built, to use a phrase from John Adams, on “the general principles of Christianity." ​ Each is an education in history, culture, and biblical worldview, but together they form a rock-solid foundation for proper thinking about America's incredible founding and early development.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/a/bundles/americas-250th-celebration-pack-hnnh" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Gary discusses a new book by Warren Throckmorton about America&rsquo;s Christian past. The book misses the point of what &ldquo;historical&rdquo; actually means, because no event or movement in history begins at one moment in time. All of history, as well as the present, is dependent on what happened before; it didn&rsquo;t just begin out of thin air.</p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/americas-christian-history-and-present" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here for today’s episode</a></p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast</a></p> <p>Larry Ball&rsquo;s article on the recent PCA committee report is <a href="https://theaquilareport.com/the-pca-committee-report-on-christian-nationalism-the-problem-in-the-middle/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">here</a>.</p>https://americanvision.org/posts/episode-98-contrary-to-joel-richardson-the-abomination-of-desolation-is-history/Fri, 26 Jun 2026 08:25:57 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/episode-98-contrary-to-joel-richardson-the-abomination-of-desolation-is-history/<p><strong>Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope-Episode 98</strong></p> <p><em>Gary <a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/contrary-to-joel-richardson-the-abomination-of-desolation-is-history" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">responds</a> to a recent video by Joel Richardson about Matthew 24:15 and the &ldquo;abomination of desolation.&rdquo;</em></p> <p>Futurists need a rebuilt temple in order to project the fulfillment of prophecies related to the abomination of desolation to another time. Is this what Jesus had in view in Matthew 24:15? A careful reading of Scripture will show that the abomination of desolation mentioned by Jesus was an event that would be fulfilled during the lifetime of His disciples. Jesus said, “This generation”—the generation He addressed—“will not pass away until all these things take place” (24:34). One of the “things” was the “abomination of desolation … standing in the holy place” (24:15).</p> <p>The abomination of desolation is mentioned in one Old Testament book (Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). The book of Maccabees, a non-inspired book written during the intertestamental period, mentions the abomination of desolation and its relationship to Antiochus Epiphanes (168 B.C.) (1 Macc. 1:10-64; 4:36-59; 6:7; 2 Macc. 10:1-8). First-century Jews would have been familiar with the theology and history surrounding the abomination of desolation. There was no doubt in the minds of those who read and understood Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:15 that the abomination of desolation prophecy was fulfilled in events leading up to the temple’s destruction in A.D. 70. The Apostle Paul would later address the concerns of the Thessalonians about the “day of the Lord” with a discussion of the man of lawlessness” (2 Thess. 2). The man of lawlessness was a contemporary figure who was identified with the “abomination of desolation.”</p> <blockquote> <p>The prophecy of Daniel concerning the appalling sacrilege had been called to mind in the year A.D. 40 when Caligula laid plans to have an image of himself set up in the Jerusalem Temple (see Philo, <em>Legatio ad Gaium</em>; Josephus, <em>Antiquities</em> XVIII. viii. 2-9; Tacitus, <em>History</em> V.9). After that catastrophe was averted, Josephus found the fulfillment of Daniel in the events of A.D. 66-70 (<em>Antiquities</em> X. xi. 7: “in the same manner Daniel also wrote about the empire of the Romans and that Jerusalem would be taken and the Temple laid waste”). He refers to an ancient prophecy concerning the desecration of the Temple by Jewish hands and found its fulfillment in a whole series of villainous acts committed by the Zealots in the Temple precincts from the period November 67 to the spring of 68.<strong>[1]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Further study on this important topic should leave no doubt that Matthew 24:15 was fulfilled in its entirety before the passing away of the generation that heard Jesus’ prophecy on the Mount of Olives. Again, the time text of verse 34 compels us to look for a candidate within the time frame of the generation that heard the prophecy.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/LDM-front_large.png?v=1572279906" alt="Last Days Madness"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>Last Days Madness</h3> <p>In this authoritative book, Gary DeMar clears the haze of "end-times" fever, shedding light on the most difficult and studied prophetic passages in the Bible, including Daniel 7:13-14; 9:24-27; Matt. 16:27-28; 24-25; Thess. 2; 2 Peter 3:3-13, and clearly explaining a host of other controversial topics.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/last-days-madness" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Gary responds to a recent video by Joel Richardson about Matthew 24:15 and the &ldquo;abomination of desolation.&rdquo; Before addressing Joel&rsquo;s claims, Gary conducts a brief survey of the Gospel of Matthew, reminding readers (and hearers) of what Jesus said and to whom He was speaking. Context and audience relevance are important and crucial to understanding.</p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/contrary-to-joel-richardson-the-abomination-of-desolation-is-history" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here for today’s episode</a></p> <p><a href="https://americanvision.org/categories/microscope/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here for all episodes of Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope</a></p> <hr> <p>[1] William L. Lane, <em>Commentary on the Gospel of Mark</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 468-69.</p>https://americanvision.org/posts/the-christian-past-that-was/Thu, 25 Jun 2026 07:26:50 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/the-christian-past-that-was/<p>If there was ever a distorted version of American history, it is Warren Throckmorton’s recounting of our nation’s religious history in his book <em>The Christian Past That Wasn’t: Debunking the Christian Nationalist Myths that Hijack History</em>. Part of the distortion comes from the fact that there is no neatly packaged starting point for the past. Certainly, specific events can be documented: the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the “Shot Heard Around the World,” the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and the events of 9/11. But there are histories that lead up to these dated events, and subsequent consequences that follow them. Throckmorton is engaged in a bit of historical trimming, selecting, and “massaging” of the historical data to fit a desired outcome.<strong>[1]</strong></p> <p>Our constitutional Founders <strong>inherited a nation founded by Christians</strong> and built, to use a phrase from John Adams, on “the general principles of Christianity,” even though not every religious believer at that time held to every tenet of Christian orthodoxy.<strong>[2]</strong> Part of the problem with Throckmorton’s argument is that he views America’s founding as a determined fixed point in time, and he picks the point most convenient for his argument. The colonists who established the first colonial governments that later became the states that formed the national government would object to the late date of America&rsquo;s founding. In fact, there are still remnants of that early religious founding circulating in documents, buildings, and ceremonies that organizations like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have made their living trying to eradicate.</p> <p>There was a worldview before 1787 that did not pass into oblivion when the Constitution was finally ratified in 1791, with the addition of the Ten Amendments. Many state constitutions were explicitly Christian, and all were generally religious. None of this changed with the ratification of the Constitution. In fact, today the 50 state constitutions mention God using various designations, such as “Supreme Ruler of the Universe,” “Creator,” “God,” “Divine Goodness,” “Divine Guidance,” “Supreme Being,” “Lord,” “Sovereign Ruler of the Universe,” “Legislator of the Universe,” and “Almighty God” as the most common and most biblical phrase (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; etc.). (The claim has been made that West Virginia is the exception. This is not the case.<strong>[3]</strong>) For example, the Preamble to the Constitution of Pennsylvania, where Throckmorton taught at Grove City College, includes the following: “WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” He is correct that these religious precepts have changed over time. This is a fact not in dispute. His book, however, is misnamed. It should be titled “The Christian Past that Was.”</p> <p>If we begin with 1620, the arrival of the Separatist Puritans at Plymouth, and add 150 years to that date, we come to 1770. Before Plymouth, Jamestown was founded in 1607. Let’s see if Throckmorton’s thesis holds up. Beginning in 1774, Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the army. It sponsored the publication of a Bible. Christian morality was adopted by the armed forces, and public lands were made available to promote Christianity among the Indians. John Adams, representing Massachusetts, and George Washington, representing Virginia, were present at these early congressional meetings. On March 16, 1776, “by order of Congress” a “day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer” where people of the nation were called on to “<strong>acknowledge the overruling providence of God</strong>” and bewail their “<strong>manifold sins and transgressions</strong>, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, <strong>through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ</strong>, obtain his pardon and forgiveness.”</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://americanvision.org/images/uploads/a250.png" alt="America&#39;s 250th Celebration Pack"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>America&#39;s 250th Celebration Pack</h3> <p>Learn the real history!! To mark the historic 250th Anniversary of America's official declaration of separation from the tyrannical overreach of King George, American Vision is making these important books available for one great price! More than 45% off!! Each is an education in history, culture, and biblical worldview, but together they form a rock-solid foundation for proper thinking about America's incredible founding and early development. </p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/a/bundles/americas-250th-celebration-pack-hnnh" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Congress set aside December 18, 1777, as a day of thanksgiving so the American people “may express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor”<strong>[4]</strong> and on which they might “join the penitent confession of their manifold sins &hellip; that it may please God, <strong>through the merits of Jesus Christ</strong>, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance.” Congress also recommended that Americans petition God “to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consists in righteousness, <strong>peace and joy in the Holy Ghost</strong>.”<strong>[5]</strong> Keep in mind that these two proclamations precede (1774) and follow (1777) the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, of which the Constitution refers to: “Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September <strong>in the year of our Lord</strong> one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and <strong>of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth</strong>.”</p> <p>• “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are <strong>endowed by their Creator</strong> with certain unalienable Rights, that <strong>among these</strong> are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”</p> <p>• “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America,” appeal “to the <strong>Supreme Judge of the world</strong> for the rectitude of our intentions….”</p> <p>• “with a firm reliance on the protection of <strong>divine Providence</strong>, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”</p> <p>Historians are correct that there were traditional Christians and deists among the Founders. “Around the time of the American Revolution,” Robert Royal, president of the Faith and Reason Institute, writes that “a significant <em>minority</em> of the founders and the other colonists had been influenced by a moderate deism of the British sort that also retained strong elements of Christianity. Few, however, were deists properly speaking; most were out-and-out Christians.”<strong>[6]</strong> The deists shaped their moral worldview from Christianity, picking and choosing what they liked and disliked and then constructing a hybrid religious model. Benjamin Franklin Morris’ book <em><strong><a href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/christian-life-and-character-of-the-civil-institutions-of-the-united-states" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States</a></strong></em> is an antidote to such thinking.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/AVPChristianLife_Character3DCover_large.png?v=1625058462" alt="Christian Life and Character"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>Christian Life and Character</h3> <p>Benjamin Franklin Morris' book has been out of print for over 100 years. If you can find an original copy, it's only because you have looked in the deep recesses of university libraries where the volume is likely collecting dust on dimly lit library shelves. Organizations like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have done their best to ignore the content of the massive compilation of original source material found in this book. If Americans ever become aware of the facts assembled by the author in this historic encyclopedia of knowledge, arguments for a secular founding of America will turn to dust. Reprinted by American Vision for the first time in over 140 years in 2007, we can't keep this book in print! </p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/christian-life-and-character-of-the-civil-institutions-of-the-united-states" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Throckmorton mentions Benjamin Franklin in the Introduction to his book. Franklin underwent a religious pilgrimage throughout his long life. There is little doubt that in his early years, he was quite the religious skeptic, but never an atheist. At the Pennsylvania Convention of 1776, “Franklin, who presided, was apparently unable to stop the Convention from incorporating a constitutional provision stating that every representative was to declare his belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible.”<strong>[7]</strong> This, in itself, shows that there was a strong relationship between the Christian religion and civil government, and that Franklin’s views were in the minority.</p> <p>Franklin read the writings of English deists as a young man, but “later experience and reflection caused him to retreat somewhat from the thoroughgoing deism of his early life&hellip;. Indeed, Franklin’s views on providence and prayer were quite inconsistent with the deistic conception of an absentee God who does not and who could not, in consistency with the perfection of his work of creation and his impartial nature, interfere in the affairs of men.”<strong>[8]</strong></p> <p>He states in his <em>Autobiography</em>, “I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that he made the world, and govern’d it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue reward, either here or hereafter.”<strong>[9]</strong> Franklin became disenchanted with much of what passed for Christianity in his day. He recalls waiting expectedly for comments from a minister who took as his text, “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things” (Phil. 4:8). Franklin commented, “And I imagin’d, in a sermon on such a text, we could not miss of having some morality.” Instead of deriving moral application from the text, the minister went on to call for ceremonial and ecclesiastical works. Franklin went on to comment, “these might be all good things; but as they were not the kind of good things that I expected from that text, I despaired of ever meeting with them from any other, was disgusted, and attended his preaching no more.”<strong>[10]</strong> Franklin’s disappointment wasn’t with the text, but an unfounded application of the text.</p> <p>As Throckmorton points out, it was Franklin who addressed the Constitutional Convention by reminding those in attendance of “a superintending Providence” in their favor that brought them to their unique place that would make history.<strong>[11]</strong> He cited Psalm 127:1 to establish his point: “Unless the LORD builds the house, they labor in vain who build it.” He went on to say something non-deistic. He saw “proofs” that “God rules in the affairs of men,” and without God’s “concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” (Gen. 11:1-9).<strong>[12]</strong></p> <p>Throckmorton uses Franklin’s appeal and the refusal of most of the Constitutional delegates to follow his admonition to pray as proof that our nation did not have a Christian past. It proves the opposite. His appeal to our nation’s vibrant Christian past was evident in an appeal to recent history.</p> <blockquote> <p>In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. — Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance?</p> </blockquote> <p>Over time, our nation has drifted, first by placing natural law on an equal footing with special revelation, second by adopting religious pluralism as a governing principle, and third by concluding that materialism is the basis of all reality. The conclusions of Throckmorton’s work will lead us into oblivion. The issue is not the “separation of church and state,” as he claims. That ship has sailed. (See my book <em><strong><a href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/god-and-government" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">God and Government</a></strong></em>). What worldview will fight the extremes of materialism and the ongoing expansion of Islam? Religious pluralism is the vehicle for Islam to dominate the once-Christian West. Even Jefferson and Adams saw the danger in the 18th century. See my book <em><strong><a href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/case-for-americas-christian-heritage" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">The Case for America’s Christian Heritage</a></strong></em>.</p> <hr> <p>[1] Walter Gratzer, <em>The Undergrowth of Science: Delusion, Self-Deception and Human Frailty</em> (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000), vii.</p> <p>[2] In a June 28, 1813, letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams stated that the general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity, alongside the general principles of English and American liberty, which were also founded on Christian principles going back to Magna Carta (1215).</p> <p>Adams clarified that these &ldquo;general principles&rdquo; served as the unifying moral framework for the religiously diverse Continental Congress, which included Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Deists. He argued that despite their theological differences, all members were educated in these core Christian tenets and united by a shared belief in liberty. Adams further avowed that he believed these general principles of Christianity were “as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God,” asserting that they formed the essential foundation for the nation&rsquo;s independence and moral order.</p> <p>[3] See “<a href="https://iusbvision.wordpress.com/all-50-state-constitutions-mention-god/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">God in the State Constitutions</a>”. The West Virginia Preamble of 1872 reads, “Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia, reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God.” In 1960, the voters of the state of West Virginia ratified the following Preamble to their state’s Constitution: “Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia, in and through the provisions of this Constitution, reaffirm our faith in and our constant reliance upon God, and seek diligently to promote, preserve, and perpetuate good government in the State of West Virginia for the common welfare, freedom, and security of ourselves and our posterity.” Robert Bastress, <em>The West Virginia State Constitution</em> (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1995), 27.</p> <p>[4] In another context, “divine benefactor” would be viewed as a deist ascription to an unnamed deity. It’s obvious that in this context the Christian God is in view.</p> <p>[5] The proclamation can be found in Gary DeMar, <em><a href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/americas-christian-history-the-untold-story" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">America’s Christian History</a></em> (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2005), 252.</p> <p>[6] Robert Royal, <em>The God that Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West</em> (New York: Encounter Books, 2006), 206. Emphasis added. For some helpful comments on the “unpopularity of deism” in the colonies, see Herbert M. Morais, <em>Deism in Eighteenth Century America</em> (New York: Russell &amp; Russell, [1934] 1960), 91-98.</p> <p>[7] Herbert M. Morais, <em>Deism in Eighteenth Century America</em> (New York: Russell &amp; Russell, [1934] 1960) 91.</p> <p>[8] John Orr, <em>English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1935), 211.</p> <p>[9] Benjamin Franklin, <em>Autobiography</em>, ed. John Bigelow (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1868), 211.</p> <p>[10] Franklin, <em>Autobiography</em>, 212–213.</p> <p>[11] See <a href="www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006642.jpg">www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006642.jpg</a></p> <p>[12] After the Convention, Franklin’s recommendation for an “officiate” (chaplain) was acted upon on April 9, 1789. Two chaplains were appointed, one to the House of Representatives and one to the Senate, with a salary of $500 each, with no thought of violating the Constitution.</p>https://americanvision.org/posts/world-cup-fans-reaction-to-america/Wed, 24 Jun 2026 07:00:04 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/world-cup-fans-reaction-to-america/<p><em>Gary <a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/world-cup-fans-reaction-to-america" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">discusses</a> the World Cup and the responses of international fans visiting America for the first time.</em></p> <p>God did not reserve His commandments for just the nation Israel and the church. Scripture makes it clear that all kings in Israel should copy the law in the presence of the Levitical priests so the rulers would be careful to observe every word of the law (Deuteronomy 17:18-19). Even nations outside Israel were required to follow the law as it was given to the nation Israel. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they broke the law of God (Genesis 13:13). God commanded the prophet Jonah to preach to the Ninevites (Assyrians) because their wickedness had come up before God (Jonah 1:2). The reason is clear: “There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 24:22). The prophet Amos set forth the coming judgment of God to Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, and Moab. These non-Israelite nations stood accountable for their transgressions: “For three transgressions . . . and for four I will not revoke its punishment” (Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 13; 2:1). Non-Israelite nations were to be judged along with Judah and Israel (2:4, 6). There is one law and one Lawgiver.</p> <blockquote> <p>Wherever [Christianity] has gone it has rebuked oppression, repressed violence, and compelled vice, abashed, to skulk in darkness. It has given to us, as a nation, the free institutions which command the admiration and excite the hopes of the downtrodden in all lands. It has given to Christendom the power which it now exercises over the destiny of the whole world. (Moses Hoge)</p> </blockquote> <p>The New Testament shows a similar emphasis, as we should expect. The God of the New Testament is the same God of the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6), therefore His law does not change (Matthew 5:17-20). Though Christians do not make blood sacrifices as remission for sins, we do keep this Old Testament law in Christ. The Bible states that “all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22; <em>cf.</em> Leviticus 17:11). Shed blood still is required, but Jesus became our perfect and final sacrifice for sins: “[B]ut now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Hebrews 9:26). All ceremonial laws, laws applied to the redemptive work of Christ, are fulfilled when an individual repents of his sin and unconditionally surrenders himself to Jesus.</p> <p>Christianity threatens all totalitarian regimes because the Christian citizen’s ultimate allegiance belongs to God, who rules all earthly kingdoms and calls those who rule to rule according to laws set forth in Scripture, rather than the whims of men.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/godandgovt_large.png?v=1608039906" alt="God and Government"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>God and Government</h3> <p>The work of reviving America is far from finished, and Americans need to hear—now more than ever—the biblical and historical truths explained in God and Government. American Vision has thoroughly renovated, revised, and updated Gary DeMar’s monumental work into this beautiful one-volume hardback. With a fresh new look, more images, an extensive subject and scripture index, and an updated bibliography, God and Government is ready to prepare a whole new generation to take on the political and religious battles confronting Christians today. May it be used in a new awakening of Christians in America—not just to inform minds, but to stimulate action and secure a better tomorrow for our posterity.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/god-and-government" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Gary discusses the World Cup and the responses of international fans visiting America for the first time. Many of them were given a false idea about what the USA is like and come away surprised about how well they are being received. Gary also mentions some of the funny things that they are loving about the United States and the people they are meeting.</p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/world-cup-fans-reaction-to-america" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here for today’s episode</a></p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast</a></p>https://americanvision.org/posts/saul-and-the-witch-of-en-dor/Tue, 23 Jun 2026 08:03:13 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/saul-and-the-witch-of-en-dor/<p>Penn Jillette and Raymond Teller are stage magicians. They also attack frauds who claim to be supernaturally endowed with psychic powers and communication with the spirit realm. They aren’t the first to do this. Reginald Scot (c. 1538-1599), author of <em><a href="https://archive.org/details/discoverieofwitc00scot/page/n5/mode/2up" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">The Discoverie of Witchcraft</a></em> (1584), exposed the witch-hunting craze of his time.</p> <p>He also applied his observational skills by explaining that many people believed feats of magic were displays of the supernatural, but that they were accomplished through deception and misdirection. “If Pharaoh’s magicians had suddenly made frogs,” Scot argued, “why could they not drive them away again? If they could not hurt the frogs, why should we think that they could make them?… Such things as we are being bewitched to imagine, have no truth at all either in action or essence, beside the bare imagination.”<strong>[1]</strong> Turning a small amount of water into blood is simple. Turning bloody water into clean water is something else, especially millions of gallons of the stuff. Pharaoh’s magicians ran out of tricks. By the third miracle, “the magicians said to Pharaoh, ‘This is the finger of God’” (Ex. 8:19). They knew a miracle when they saw it.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/bkp0397_front__84725.1286483519.1280.1280_large.jpg?v=1371841572" alt="Thinking Straight in a Crooked World"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>Thinking Straight in a Crooked World</h3> <p>The nursery rhyme "There Was a Crooked Man" is an appropriate description of how sin affects us and our world. We live in a crooked world of ideas evaluated by crooked people. Left to our crooked nature, we can never fully understand what God has planned for us and His world. God has not left us without a corrective solution. He has given us a reliable reference point in the Bible so we can identify the crookedness and straighten it. </p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/thinking-straight-in-a-crooked-world" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Scot is important because he claimed demonic manipulation of nature was an illusion. Witches were not in league with the Devil but rather were deluded persons who needed biblical guidance rather than death and torture. He spends time making the case that only God controls physical elements.</p> <p>In addition to Scot, Thomas Ady produced a series of books on the same topic. Little is known of Ady. His first and best-known work, <em>Candle in the Dark: Or, A Treatise Concerning the Nature of Witches &amp; Witchcraft</em>, published in 1656, was unsuccessfully used by George Burroughs in his defense during the Salem witch trials in 1692. Ady also published <em>A Perfect Discovery of Witches</em> (1661) and <em>The Doctrine of Devils</em> (1676).</p> <p>If the Bible had been followed, there never would have been witch trials or an inquisition. In the second part of <em>Candle in the Dark</em>, Ady asks the following questions related to the so-called evidence used against “witches” during the height of the European witch craze:</p> <blockquote> <p>Where is it written in all the Old and New Testaments that a witch is a murderer, or hath power to kill by witchcraft, or to afflict with any disease or infirmity? Where is it written that witches have imps sucking of their bodies? Where is it written that witches have biggs [nipples] for imps to suck on … that the devil setteth privy marks upon witches … that witches can hurt corn or cattle … or can fly in the air…. Where do we read of a he-devil or she-devil, called <em>incubus</em> or <em>succubus</em>, that useth generation or copulation?<strong>[2]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Modern debunking of supernatural claims was standardized by Harry Houdini (Erich Weiss) (1874-1926). Many in Houdini’s day believed that he used mystical means to accomplish what he claimed was simple sleight of hand and misdirection. For example, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the author of the Sherlock Holmes detective stories, was convinced Houdini was a medium and capable of supernatural feats through occult powers. He believed that Houdini could only perform some of his tricks by dematerializing. Houdini objected.</p> <blockquote> <p>I do claim to free myself from the restraint of fetters and confinement, but positively state that I accomplish my purpose purely by physical, not psychical means. The force necessary to “shoot a bolt within a lock,” is drawn from Houdini the living human being and not a medium. My methods are perfectly natural, resting on natural laws of physics. I do not dematerialize or materialize anything; I simply control and manipulate natural things in a manner perfectly well known to myself, and thoroughly accountable for and adequately understandable (if not duplicable) by any person to whom I may elect to divulge my secrets.<strong>[3]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>As a skeptic of the paranormal, Houdini should be an example to all of us. Don’t be afraid to question claims of preternatural or supernatural phenomena. If you are ever tempted to believe, you must investigate, question, and doubt: “The first to plead his case seems just, until another comes and examines him” (Prov. 18:17). John tells us to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Paul writes, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). Don’t be fooled either by the materialist (man-centered “philosophy”) or the magician (“empty deception”), both are the “tradition of men.”</p> <p>In addition to Scot, Ady, Houdini, James Randi, and Penn and Teller, Christian “magicians” André Kole and Dan Korem have been relentless in exposing frauds. Kole has written <em>Miracles or Magic?</em>, <em>Mind Games: Exposing Today’s Psychics, Frauds, and False Spiritual Phenomena</em>, and <em>Astrology and Psychic Phenomena</em>. Dan Korem’s <em>Powers: Testing the Psychic and Supernatural</em> and <em>The Fakers</em>, written with Paul Meier, follow a similar methodology. Christians should be familiar with the content and arguments of these books.</p> <p>This brings me to a recent discovery by a Latin scholar in Germany of two lost sermons by the fourth-century church father Augustine of Hippo on the Witch of Endor from 1 Samuel 28.</p> <p>Scot argued in his <em>The Discoverie of Witchcraft</em> that the Witch of Endor was not a necromancer,<strong>[4]</strong> someone who claims to communicate with the dead by summoning their spirits as apparitions or visions, but a ventriloquist and illusionist. Houdini would often disguise himself and attend seances to expose these frauds. “I’m not denouncing spiritualism. I’m showing up frauds. If there is an honest medium, trot her out.”<strong>[5]</strong> Houdini believed in God and the afterlife, so he did not deny that supernatural events could take place. “Gladly would I embrace Spiritualism,” he wrote in the preface to his <em>A Magician Among the Spirits</em>, &ldquo;if it could prove its claims, but I am not willing to be deluded by the fraudulent impositions of so-called psychics, or accept as sacred reality any of the evidence that has been placed before me thus far.&rdquo;<strong>[6]</strong> As a master at misdirection and deception, Houdini was the perfect person to expose the fraud. “It takes a flimflammer to catch a flimflammer,” Houdini told a reporter in 1924.<strong>[7]</strong> Stage magicians are in the flim-flam business.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/apolo101_large.png?v=1564596151" alt="Apologetics 101: Defending the Christian Faith"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>Apologetics 101: Defending the Christian Faith</h3> <p>Apologetics 101 is an in-depth study of defending the Christian faith. The Greek word apologia simply means "defense," and apologetics is the art and act of giving a defense. Christian Apologetics then is the art and act of defending the Christian faith, not a proof of God in general. The Christian apologist must be ready to answer truth claims about the Bible, not claims about Hinduism, Islam, or any other false religion. The Bible makes the bold claim that Jesus is the ONLY way, and the Christian apologist must set his sights on the Bible alone, not on a defense of arbitrary theism.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/apologetics-101" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>What about the Witch of En-dor? Some claim that God made Samuel appear to frighten the medium and bring judgment on Saul. She didn’t have any power to communicate with the dead. And neither does the devil. A better explanation is that the medium was pulling a fast one on Saul. She knew it was Saul. No matter how much he tried to disguise himself (1 Sam. 28:8), he couldn’t hide his great height. The Bible describes King Saul as being head and shoulders taller than any other Israelite (1 Sam. 9:2). Only Saul could guarantee that she would not be punished (1 Sam. 28:9). He was vulnerable and open to suggestion because he had lost all communication with God (28:6-7, 15), so he sought a “medium,” someone who he believed could communicate with the dead. He wanted the spirit of Samuel to help him, but Samuel was dead! Saul’s servants said to him, “Behold, there is a woman who is a medium at En-dor.” The word “medium” is translated by the Greek Septuagint (LXX) as ἐγγαστρίμυθον (<em>engastrimuthon</em>), “a ventriloquist, mostly of women who delivered oracles by this means.”<strong>[8]</strong> A medium would throw her voice as if the dead spirit was speaking through her. Dan Korem, who is familiar with stage magic, takes the position that the entire encounter was staged, that the medium of En-dor was doing nothing more than a modern-day medium who claims to have contacted the dead and speaks for the departed spirit.<strong>[9]</strong></p> <p>She claimed to see “a divine being coming up from the earth” (28:13). In rare cases, the dead manifest themselves to the living: Moses and Elijah (Matt. 17:3). But do humans have the power, through demonic means, to reach departed souls? When asked to describe this apparition, all she could say was that he was an old man wrapped in a robe. Wow! What prescience. What prophet in Israel didn’t wear a robe? The medium knew this. At this point, “Saul bowed with his face to the ground and paid homage” (28:14). The only person who “saw” anything was the woman. Samuel never spoke. The woman spoke supposedly through the spirit of Samuel. This is typical of how mediums operate. Houdini aggressively exposed fraudulent mediums who claimed to channel his mother, noting that his mother was a Hungarian who did not speak English and would have used her son&rsquo;s birth name, Erich, rather than his stage name.</p> <p>The medium knew Saul was on the run and what had happened to him. It was common knowledge. So-called mentalists use this type of information to give the impression that they can read minds and predict the future. One of the most popular performers in this field is Oz Pearlman, who seems to read people’s minds. He doesn’t. Watch this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEFgADHBOZQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">6-minute video</a>.</p> <hr> <p>[1] Reginald Scot, <em>The Discoverie of Witchcraft</em> (New York: Dover Publications, 1972), 180. Scot’s work was originally published in 1584, and only 250 copies were reprinted in 1886. It was reprinted once again in Great Britain in 1930. The 1972 Dover edition is the latest reprint, retaining the original edition&rsquo;s spelling.</p> <p>[2] Thomas Ady, <em>A Candle in the Dark: or, A Treatise Concerning the Nature of Witches and Witchcraft: Being Advice to Judges, Sheriffes, Justices of the Peace, and Grand-Jury-men, what to do, before they passe Sentence on such as are Arraigned for their Lives as Witches</em> (London: printed for R[obert] I[bbitson] to be sold by Tho. Newberry at the three Lions in Cornhill by the Exchange, 1656). This work is searchable.</p> <p>[3] Quoted in Loraine Boettner, <em>Immortality</em> (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1956), 156. The quotation can also be found in J. C. Cannell, <em>The Secrets of Houdini</em> (1931), 14.</p> <p>[4] “‘Divination through a dead body&rsquo;), a compound of Greek νεκρός (<em>nekrós</em>, or ‘dead body’) and μαντεία (<em>manteía</em>, or ‘divination’).”</p> <p>[5] Milbourne Christopher, <em>Houdini: The Untold Story</em> (New York: Pocket Books, [1969] 1975), 215.</p> <p>[6] Harry Houdini, <em>A Magician Among the Spirits</em> (New York: Harper &amp; Brothers, 1924), xi.</p> <p>[7] <em>Los Angeles Times</em> (October 28, 1924). Quoted in Silverman, <em>Houdini!!!</em>, 247.</p> <p>[8] The Greek word γαστήρ (<em>gaster</em>), “belly,” makes up part of the word.</p> <p>[9] See Danny Korem and Paul Meier, <em>The Fakers: Exploding the Myths of the Supernatural</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981), 91-101.</p>https://americanvision.org/posts/the-vision-of-the-self-appointed/Mon, 22 Jun 2026 07:09:52 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/the-vision-of-the-self-appointed/<p><em>Newspeak and <a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/the-vision-of-the-self-appointed-0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">media brain-washing</a> are the tactics, but many are (finally) starting to question the &ldquo;upside down&rdquo; world of the cultural elite.</em></p> <p>When individuals lose their identity, when civil government becomes the only government and people live in service to the State, “the standard of living falls, refugees flee across borders in abject poverty, and barbed wire and walls go up along borders. The leaders of the revolution need to force people to stay inside the borders of [the promised] paradise” that turns out to be hell on earth.<strong>[1]</strong></p> <p>If you want to change a nation, the place to start is with individuals in self-government, with you and me. Change will not be realized at the top until there’s good (righteous) self-government under God at the bottom. We get the civil government we deserve.</p> <blockquote> <p>How do Christians rule? Christians rule by serving. Dominion is not domination; far from it. Biblical dominion is ministry to the needs of others. “Whoever desires to be first shall be the slave of all.”&hellip;Our desire for dominion and rule—if it is really a desire for godly authority—will be demonstrated in our degree of service toward others. The true ruler, in our Lord’s terms, is the one who puts himself most at the disposal of others. Our level of greatness is shown in our degree of submission and ministry.<strong>[2]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Unlike God, even the best of men are sinful creatures who are prone to abuse power. All power, no matter how benevolent, must be “checked and balanced” in some way. King James believed that he was his own best brake on tyranny because he ruled under God’s watchful eye. This is every tyrant’s delusion. Modern rulers are no different. They believe that their political position gives them the right and duty to act as gods. To oppose their policies is akin to blasphemy because they claim to be anointed for such a task by a higher power.</p> <blockquote> <p>The great ideological crusades of twentieth-century intellectuals have ranged across the most disparate fields—from the eugenics movement of the early decades of the century to the environmentalism of the later decades, not to mention the welfare state, socialism, communism, Keynesian economics, and medical, nuclear, and automotive safety. What all these highly disparate crusades have in common is their moral exaltation of the anointed above others, who are to have their very different views nullified and superseded by the views of the anointed, imposed via the power of government.<strong>[3]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>In biblical terms, the role of government officials is ministerial (Rom. 13:4). They are to minister in a civil capacity in the same way that fathers minister in family government and church leaders (elders and deacons) minister in ecclesiastical government, all according to God’s standards of limited governmental authority.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/RFC-front_large.png?v=1603236877" alt="Restoring the Foundation of Civilization"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>Restoring the Foundation of Civilization</h3> <p>There are many Christians who will not participate in civilization-building efforts that include economics, journalism, politics, education, and science because they believe (or have been taught to believe) these areas of thought are outside the realm of what constitutes a Christian worldview. Nothing could be further from the truth.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/restoring-the-foundation-of-civilization" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Stories keep piling up about the self-appointed &ldquo;experts&rdquo; going out of their way to enforce everyone to think and believe what they demand. Newspeak and media brain-washing are the tactics, but many regular citizens are (finally) starting to push back and question the &ldquo;upside down&rdquo; world of the cultural elite.</p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/the-vision-of-the-self-appointed-0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here for today’s episode</a></p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast</a></p> <hr> <p><strong>[1]</strong> Gary North, <em>Liberating Planet Earth</em> (Fort Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987), 64–65.</p> <p><strong>[2]</strong> David Chilton, <em>Power in the Blood</em> (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemth &amp; Hyatt, 1987), 102.</p> <p><strong>[3]</strong> Thomas Sowell, <em>The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 5.</p>https://americanvision.org/posts/whats-with-spielbergs-cute-and-cuddly-alien-films/Sat, 20 Jun 2026 09:23:34 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/whats-with-spielbergs-cute-and-cuddly-alien-films/<p>Steven Spielberg’s new 2026 film, <em>Disclosure Day</em>, is about alien encounters and government cover-ups. It’s not Spielberg’s first foray into alien encounter films. There was the 1982 film <em>E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial</em> and the 1977 film <em>Close Encounters of the Third Kind</em>, initially titled <em>Watch the Skies</em>.</p> <blockquote> <p>The roots of <em>Watch the Skies</em> dated back to an indelible moment in Spielberg’s childhood, when he and his father stayed up late together to watch a meteor shower near their New Jersey home. Even in adulthood, it remained one of the most fondly recalled events of his life, a moment to hold and cherish with a father who would ultimately leave him and his mother on their own. It was his Rosebud.”<strong>[1]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>The concept for <em>E.T.</em> “was based on an imaginary friend that Spielberg created after his parents’ divorce.” The film was initially called <em>Night Skies</em> but was later named <em>E.T. and Me</em>. Gary Arnold of <em>The Washington Post</em> described it as “essentially a spiritual autobiography, a portrait of the filmmaker as a typical suburban kid set apart by an uncommonly fervent, mystical imagination.”<strong>[2]</strong> Spielberg recalls:</p> <blockquote> <p>My parents split up when I was 15 or 16 years old, and I needed a special friend, and had to use my imagination to take me to places that felt good—that helped me move beyond the problems my parents were having, and that ended our family as a whole. And thinking about that time, I thought, an extraterrestrial character would be the perfect springboard to purge the pain of your parents’ splitting up.<strong>[3]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Roger Ebert’s comments are crucial to understanding something about Spielberg’s fascination with extraterrestrials.</p> <blockquote> <p>It’s that deeper impulse, that need, that operates under the surface of “E.T.,” making it more emotionally complex than the story itself might suggest. And in the third Indiana Jones movie, there’s that bond between Indy (Harrison Ford) and his father (Sean Connery). In “Close Encounters,” the hope that alien visitors might be benign, not fearsome as they always were in science-fiction movies. And in “The Color Purple,” again the impulse to heal a broken family.</p> </blockquote> <p>Spielberg seems to be on a constant search for belonging. He hasn’t found it here, so he is “watching the skies” for a form of transcendent meaning greater than himself. Since he has abandoned “religion,” specifically the Christian religion, he’s hoping to find meaning among the stars. But who made the aliens? How far back does it all go?</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/bkp0397_front__84725.1286483519.1280.1280_large.jpg?v=1371841572" alt="Thinking Straight in a Crooked World"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>Thinking Straight in a Crooked World</h3> <p>The nursery rhyme "There Was a Crooked Man" is an appropriate description of how sin affects us and our world. We live in a crooked world of ideas evaluated by crooked people. Left to our crooked nature, we can never fully understand what God has planned for us and His world. God has not left us without a corrective solution. He has given us a reliable reference point in the Bible so we can identify the crookedness and straighten it.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/thinking-straight-in-a-crooked-world" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Most alien encounter films portray visitors from other worlds as villains, hell-bent on destruction—everything from <em>War of the Worlds</em> and <em>The Blob</em> to <em>Independence Day</em> and the <em>Alien</em> franchise, and so many more. Let’s not forget the Twilight Zone’s “To Serve Man.” Be careful what you wish for.</p> <p>Even in the 1951 film <em>The Day the Earth Stood Still</em>, the alien protagonist, who goes by the name “Carpenter,” threatens to turn Earth into a “burned-out cinder” if Earthlings threaten peaceful alien cultures with their excursions into space with their weapons of war. Here are Klaatu’s departing words.</p> <blockquote> <p>I am leaving soon, and you will forgive me if I speak bluntly. The universe grows smaller every day, and the threat of aggression by any group, anywhere, can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all, or no one is secure. Now, this does not mean giving up any freedom except the freedom to act irresponsibly. Your ancestors knew this when they made laws to govern themselves and hired policemen to enforce them. We of the other planets have long accepted this principle. We have an organization for the mutual protection of all planets and for the complete elimination of aggression. The test of any such higher authority is, of course, the police force that supports it. For our policemen, we created a race of robots. Their function is to patrol the planets—in spaceships like this one—and preserve the peace. In matters of aggression, we have given them absolute power over us; this power cannot be revoked. At the first sign of violence, they act automatically against the aggressor. The penalty for provoking their action is too terrible to risk. The result is that we live in peace, without arms or armies, secure in the knowledge that we are free from aggression and war—free to pursue more profitable enterprises. Now, we do not pretend to have achieved perfection, but we do have a system, and it works. I came here to give you these facts. It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet. But if you threaten to extend your violence, this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burned-out cinder. Your choice is simple: Join us and live in peace, or pursue your present course and face obliteration. We shall be waiting for your answer; the decision rests with you.</p> </blockquote> <p>“Steven Spielberg, a member of the baby boomer generation who grew up with flying saucers, conceived his 1977 classic [<em>Close Encounters</em>] differently, with humanity eagerly anticipating the visit from outer space. The alien ship of <em>Close Encounters</em> descends in a blaze of light that suggests the second coming of Christ.”<strong>[4]</strong> Richard Dreyfuss’s character chooses to leave his chaotic family life to seek belonging among the welcoming aliens. Melinda Dillon’s character has her son taken from her. Like Dreyfuss, she does everything she can to be reunited with him.</p> <p>Many Americans are experiencing a crisis in faith, and they are willing to reach toward the heavens to find it. “Many flying saucer buffs are believers precisely because aliens may offer hope, much like a deity&hellip;. Americans are desperately searching for hope in an increasingly cynical age.”<strong>[5]</strong> Carl Sagan made a similar point.</p> <blockquote> <p>The interest in UFOs and ancient astronauts seems at least partly the result of unfulfilled religious needs. The extraterrestrials are often described as wise, powerful, benign, human in appearance, and sometimes they are attired in long white robes. They are very much like gods and angels, coming from other planets rather than from heaven, using spaceships rather than wings. There is a little pseudoscientific overlay, but the theological antecedents are clear.<strong>[6]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Alien encounter films are projections of evolutionary optimism and messianic hope. The rationalistic worldview of secularism does not meet the needs of the spiritually deprived. Science needed to be resuscitated and infused with special meaning. More than this, science needed a resurrection of monumental proportions. Hollywood gave science a way out of its materialistic and anti-supernatural dilemma by turning to the heavens. Superman made his first appearance in Action Comics #1 in 1938. He was the first intergalactic messianic figure: he was sent to Earth by his father, kept his identity secret, exhibited extraordinary powers, emerged into the public eye at about thirty years old, and went about doing good. In <em>Superman: The Movie</em>, released in 1978, “upon his arrival, [the infant] gives us one more less-than-subtle hint as he opens his arms wide [to his adoptive parents] to suggest a miniature Christ.”<strong>[7]</strong></p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/classicmovies_large.png?v=1564155791" alt="Using Classic Films to Teach the Christian Worldview"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>Using Classic Films to Teach the Christian Worldview</h3> <p>Movies are a self-contained world. The writers and producers make the rules and the circumstances for the worlds they create. Most often though, films use the assumed order of the natural world and don't attempt to re-write reality for the viewer. Films either reinforce the real world or they rebel against it. Either way, they provide a great way to think through worldview issues and their consequences. </p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/using-classic-films-to-teach-a-christian-worldview" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Dr. Albert Edward Millar wrote “E.T.—You’re More Than a Movie Star” after watching the film with his daughters. The pamphlet lists thirty-three parallels between E.T. and Jesus Christ.<strong>[8]</strong> After the four-and-a-half-page pamphlet was printed and published, MCA-Universal City Studios accused Dr. Millar of several violations of copyright law. I have a copy of the original “illegal” publication.</p> <p>In response to the heavy-handed threats by lawyers from Universal to ban the pamphlet from publication that Millar was selling for $1, he wrote a short book titled <em>The Flea’s Reprieve</em>. Universal’s response “was like using an atomic bomb to kill a flea.” Millar’s book has recently been <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DSN15DDS/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_btm?ie=UTF8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">published</a> by one of his daughters. Did Spielberg have a hand in crushing Millar’s pamphlet? Is he still trying to crush the Christian hope with <em>Disclosure Day</em> by subtly inferring that religious beliefs may be misdirected? Is this why Christians are portrayed in a positive light? Their hearts are in the right place, but maybe belief in God is really a belief in god-like aliens.</p> <blockquote> <p>Flying saucers are just one more manifestation of the ever-present religion of humanism: evolutionary, self-salvational, and gnostic.<strong>[9]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>The last word in Disclosure Day is “listen,” reminiscent of the end of the 1951 film <em>The Thing From Another World</em>: “Watch the skies.”</p> <p>All these hopeful alien stories can’t help but borrow from the original story: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:1, 14). Spielberg was raised in a Jewish home. “[Jesus] came to His own [Jewish people], and His own people did not accept Him” (John 1:11). Accept no alien substitutes!</p> <hr> <p>[1] Chris Nashawaty, <em>The Future Was Now: Madmen, Mavericks, and the Epic Sci-Fi Summer of 1982</em> (New York: Flatiron Books, 2024). 13.</p> <p>[2] Gary Arnold, “E.T. Steven Spielberg’s Joyful Excursion, Back to Childhood, Forward to the Unknown,” <em>The Washington Post</em> (June 6, 1982). Link <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062201424.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">here</a>.</p> <p>[3] Roger Ebert, “Steven Spielberg’s Legacy,” Robert Ebert.com (Dec. 12, 2012). Link <a href="https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/steven-spielbergs-legacy" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">here</a>.</p> <p>[4] Anton Karl Kozlovic, “Robert Wise’s The Day the Earth Stood Still Part I: A Religious Film?,” <em>KINEMA</em> (Fall 2013):</p> <p>[5] Quoted in Bill Hendrick, “UFOs and the Otherworldly: Do You Believe?,” <em>Atlanta Journal/Constitution</em> (June 25, 1997), B1.</p> <p>[6] Carl Sagan, <em>Broca’s Brain</em> (New York: Random House, 1979), 67.</p> <p>[7] Robert Short, <em>The Gospel from Outer Space: The Religious Implications of E.T., Star Wars, Superman, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and 2001: A Space Odyssey</em> (San Francisco, CA: Harper &amp; Row, 1983), 42.</p> <p>[8] Al Millar, &ldquo;E.T. You’re More Than a Movie Star&rdquo; (Newport News, VA: privately published, 1982), 4-5. See Donald R. Mott and Cheryl McAllister Saunders, <em>Steven Spielberg</em> (Boston, MA: Twayne Publishers, 1986), 126, 167, note 41.</p> <p>[9] Gary North, <em>Unholy Spirits: Occultism and New Age Humanism</em> (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1986), 327.</p>https://americanvision.org/posts/episode-97-the-hour-of-testing-about-to-come/Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:09:25 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/episode-97-the-hour-of-testing-about-to-come/<p><strong>Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope-Episode 97</strong></p> <p><em>Gary <a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/the-hour-of-testing-about-to-come" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">discusses</a> common misconceptions about Revelation 3:10 and its context, emphasizing the importance of understanding biblical prophecy within its historical setting.</em></p> <p>Many commentators from the early and medieval periods held that the hour of testing in Rev. 3:10 was, or could be interpreted as, a first-century persecution. These included Ecumenius of Tricca, Andrew of Caesarea, Ralph of Laon, Hugh of St Cher, Alexander of Bremen, Vital du Four, Nicholas of Lyra, and Nicholas of Gorran. This corresponds with contemporary partial preterist interpretation of the passage. For example, Larry T. Smith writes that if Rev. 3:10 is interpreted in its proper context, “it becomes evident that this is referring to a temptation that they would soon face and not to a time of tribulation thousands of years away.”</p> <p>Some of these biblical exegetes, for example Hugh of Saint Cher and Nicholas of Gorran, believed that the hour of testing specifically referred to a period “immediately after the death of Nero” (<em>statim post mortem Neronis</em>). Geoffrey of Auxerre commented that the preservation promised perhaps referred to “the faithful of that time,” meaning the time near when John wrote the book of Revelation. Some early Protestant commentators saw the hour of testing in Rev. 3:10 as the persecution of Christians under Trajan in the first decades of the second century. These preterist interpretations of this passage are certainly no modern innovation created by the Jesuit Alcasar or by liberals. They have a long history within Christian exegesis.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/files/RFCfr_large.png?v=1779468036" alt="Revelation and the First Century"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>Revelation and the First Century</h3> <p>This book answers these questions by providing selections from ancient and medieval commentaries on the book of Revelation, writings composed long before the seventeenth century. Many of these selections are translated into English here for the first time. All of the selections reflect the fact that some Christians in ancient and medieval times interpreted visions in the book of Revelation in a preterist fashion.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/revelation-and-the-first-century" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Gary discusses common misconceptions about Revelation 3:10 and its context, emphasizing the importance of understanding biblical prophecy within its historical setting. He clarifies that many interpretations of end-time events are misapplied and highlights the early church&rsquo;s view on Revelation&rsquo;s fulfillment.</p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/the-hour-of-testing-about-to-come" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here for today’s episode</a></p> <p><a href="https://americanvision.org/categories/microscope/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here for all episodes of Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope</a></p>https://americanvision.org/posts/the-1950-film-that-promoted-the-family-and-ridiculed-planned-parenthood/Thu, 18 Jun 2026 07:41:45 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/the-1950-film-that-promoted-the-family-and-ridiculed-planned-parenthood/<p>My wife and I were watching Season 3, Episode 4 “A Little Drop of Poison” from the British version of <em>Professor T</em> when the Professor mentioned Lillian Gilbreth and her book <em><a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/16256/16256-h/16256-h.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">The Psychology of Management</a></em> (1914) regarding “time and motion studies.” The study triggered something for the Professor that was a clue to help him solve a crime. The current condition of our mismanaged government might be able to glean some pointers from Gilbreth studies given the subtitle: <em>The Function of the Mind in Determining, Teaching, and Installing Methods of Least Waste</em>.</p> <p>For me, the Professor’s comment reminded me of the 1950 film <em>Cheaper by the Dozen</em>. The setting for the movie, based on a 1946 novel of the same name written by Frank Gilbreth, Jr. and Ernestine Gilbreth Carey,<strong>[1]</strong> two of the dozen children the Gilbreths had, is New Jersey. The movie and novel tell the story of time and motion study and efficiency experts Frank and Lillian Gilbreth and their twelve children. It’s unfortunate that this family-friendly movie has been eclipsed by the crude remake starring Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt. There is no comparison with the original. Avoid the remake and its sequel.</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/classicmovies_large.png?v=1564155791" alt="Using Classic Films to Teach the Christian Worldview"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>Using Classic Films to Teach the Christian Worldview</h3> <p>In this talk, Gary DeMar makes the point that classic movies are excellent teaching tools for a Christian worldview—for children and adults. Classic movies are often heavily dialogue-based, which provides a necessary counterpoint to the visually stimulating and soundbite-driven modern method of moviemaking. Real life is about real conversations, and classic movies provide a great virtual training ground for thinking and living in the real world of ideas and consequences. Also includes illustrated PDF ebook that helps to reinforce and explain the concepts discussed in the lecture, as well as Gary's 89-page movie recommendation list.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/using-classic-films-to-teach-a-christian-worldview" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Frank Gilbreth (1868-1924) started his work career as a bricklayer and then advanced to contractor. It’s the contractor’s job to get efficient work out of his laborers while retaining quality. He noticed that his bricklayers were inefficient. From his observations, he developed a more efficient way to lay bricks. His recommendations were initially opposed by the unions because it meant fewer workers were needed for a job. Along with his wife Lillian (1878-1972), the Gilbreths made a career and science of studying the way people work. The invention of the motion picture camera assisted them in breaking down movements into fractions of time to observe the smallest motions in workers.</p> <blockquote> <p>They originated micro-motion study, a breakdown of work into fundamental elements now called <em>therbligs</em> (derived from Gilbreth spelled backwards [with the t and h transposed]). These elements were studied by means of a motion-picture camera and a timing device which indicated the time intervals on the film as it was exposed.<strong>[2]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Repeated movements done the wrong way would result in fatigue and injury. They emphasized that there was only the “one best way” to perform a task.</p> <p>The Gilbreth’s were more than theorists. They put their observations into action in the real world. Frank Gilbreth was the first to propose that a surgical nurse serve as an assistant or “caddy” to a surgeon. A well-trained surgical nurse now hands surgical instruments to the surgeon as he calls for them. Armies teach recruits how to disassemble and reassemble their weapons while blindfolded based on studies and recommendations made by the Gilbreths. This ability undoubtedly has saved countless lives as soldiers learned how to clean and repair their machine guns day or night.</p> <p>Frank Gilbreth used every opportunity to study motion and improve the way people work. When his children came down with tonsillitis, he insisted that the operations be done in his own home so he could film the procedure.</p> <p>There’s one delightful scene in the film that shows the change in social and moral attitudes from the 1930s. Mildred Natwick’s <strong>[3]</strong> character visits the Gilbreth household representing a Planned Parenthood-like organization. Mrs. Gilbreth is amused by the visit and calls her husband. Showing indignation, as only Clifton Webb can, he signals for the children to assemble in the living room. They come running from every corner of the house. The woman is shocked and bolts for the door muttering as she goes that someone was pulling her leg for recommending that she ask if Mrs. Gilbreth would like to join the anti-child and pro-abortion organization.</p> <p>A second book, <em>Belles on Their Toes</em>, published in 1952, continues the family’s adventures after the unexpected death of Mr. Gilbreth in 1924. <em>Belles on Their Toes</em> was also made into a film, starring Jeanne Crain and Myrna Loy (1952) and focused on the lives of Mrs. Gilbreth and her children. Lillian Gilbreth took over her husband’s work and advanced his recommendations and became a well-respected advocate for the scientific study of motion in her own right. She graduated from the University of California with a B.A. and M.A. and went on to earn a Ph.D. from Brown University. Like her husband, she lectured at Purdue University.</p> <p>This is a wonderful film that shows how loving parents juggle raising children, education, and work without losing the focus on any of them.</p> <p><em><strong>Trivia</strong></em></p> <p>On the shelf in the living room is a picture of the real-life Frank Gilbreth in uniform as an Army Major during WWI. This is visible outside the makeshift operating room during the mass tonsillectomies.</p> <p>Frank Gilbreth helped to train a fast typist to help the Remington Company win a world-wide typing competition. He trained the typist to focus on the copy he was typing, not the keys.</p> <p>Among other things, Lillian Gilbreth patented an electric food mixer and a trash can with a step-on lid opener.</p> <p>Frank Gilbreth, Jr. (1911-2001) wrote under the pen name Ashley Cooper for the <em>Post and Courier</em> in Charleston, South Carolina and compiled the <em>Dictionary of Charlestonese</em>, a pamphlet that poked fun at the Charleston accent.</p> <p><em><strong>For the creationist crowd:</strong></em></p> <p><em>Man on the street</em>: “Hey Noah, what are you doing with that Ark?” <br> <em>Frank Gilbreth</em>: “Collecting animals like the good Lord told me brother. All we need now is a jackass. Hop in!”</p> <p><em><strong>Points to Ponder</strong></em></p> <p>Question: In what ways has the world changed for the average household when compared to the way life is portrayed in <em>Cheaper by the Dozen</em>?</p> <p>Answer: There are obvious observational changes like hair styles, dress, and social attitudes. Consider what it would take to take care of a family of 14 in terms of washing clothes, shopping for food, and transportation. There were no large grocery stores for one-stop shopping. Fruits and vegetables were often sold by farmers who brought their produce to the city. Butcher shops were common. Most women baked their own bread and made their own pasta and pies. Hot water heaters were often a luxury. Water was heated on top of the stove, and many stoves were wood burning. Clothes were often handmade and passed down. Washing machines were a luxury, and even these were primitive. Clothes were placed in a tub of water and soap, rinsed, and then hand-cranked through a ringer to squeeze out the water. They were then hung outside on lines to get them dry.</p> <p>Most women were up at dawn to begin their day of work and still working after their children were in bed. There were no dishwashers, electric appliances, garbage disposals, microwave ovens, or air conditioning.</p> <p>The mass production of the antibiotic Penicillin was not readily available until the early 1940s. There was no television and no conception of the internet or email. There was almost no “Public Assistance,” that is, government welfare programs.</p> <p>MPAA Rating: Not rated<br> Running Time: 85 minutes</p> <p><em><strong>Cast</strong></em></p> <p>Clifton Webb: Frank Bunker Gilbreth<br> Myrna Loy: Lillian Gilbreth<br> Jeanne Crain: Ann Gilbreth<br> Edgar Buchanan: Dr. Burton<br> Barbara Bates: Ernestine Gilbreth<br> Mildred Natwick: Mrs. Mebane</p> <hr> <p>[1] There is an extended bibliography on the Gilbreths at <a href="http://gilbrethnetwork.tripod.com/gbooks.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">http://gilbrethnetwork.tripod.com/gbooks.html</a></p> <p>[2] <a href="http://gilbrethnetwork.tripod.com/bio.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">http://gilbrethnetwork.tripod.com/bio.html</a></p> <p>[3] Natwick is remembered for small but memorable roles in several John Ford film classics, including <em>3 Godfathers</em> (1948), <em>She Wore a Yellow Ribbon</em> (1949), and <em>The Quiet Man</em> (1952). She played Miss Ivy Gravely, in Alfred Hitchcock’s <em>The Trouble with Harry</em> (1955), and a sorceress in <em>The Court Jester</em> (1956). She received an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress for her performance as Edith Banks in the 1967 film <em>Barefoot in the Park</em>.</p>https://americanvision.org/posts/the-state-of-american-disunion-part-two/Wed, 17 Jun 2026 08:06:12 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/the-state-of-american-disunion-part-two/<p><em>Gary <a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/the-state-of-american-disunion-part-two" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">concludes his interview</a> with Rod Martin about several recent elections and what he thinks might be coming in the near future.</em></p> <p>The claim of neutrality by Christians is judged harshly in the Bible: “I know your deeds, that you are neither hot nor cold; I would that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth” (Rev. 3:15–16). Standing in the middle of a moral position is not neutrality. David Chilton writes:</p> <blockquote> <p>The Laodicean church brings neither a cure for illness nor a drink to soothe dry lips and parched throats. The sort of Christianity represented by Laodicea is worthless. The church provided neither refreshment for the spiritually weary, nor healing for the spiritually sick. It was totally ineffective, and thus distasteful to its Lord. Thus, says [Robert] Mounce, “the church is not being called to task for its spiritual temperature but for the barrenness of its works.”</p> <p>This explains Christ’s statement: I would that you were cold or hot. He is not saying outright apostasy is preferable to middle-of-the-roadism; rather, He is wishing that the Laodicean Christians would have an influence upon their society.8</p> </blockquote> <p>The modern church that refuses to take a stand against the evils of the day is good for nothing. In the gospels, Jesus explains it this way: “You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing any more, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men” (Matt. 5:13). Supposed neutrality is a lamp that’s put “under the peck-measure” that leaves the house in perpetual darkness (5:15) and a city’s light that’s hidden so it does not serve as a beacon to weary travellers (5:14).</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/mlht1_large.png?v=1365620692" alt="Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths</h3> <p>Like the Bereans of Paul’s day (Acts 17:11), Christians should check the veracity of all opinions against the only reliable standard of authority that God has placed in our hands: the Bible. This may mean a change in belief systems for some. Myths, Lies and Half-Truths adopts Jesus’ methodology of taking a closer look at God’s Word and applies it to erroneous misinterpretations that have resulted in a virtual shut-down of the church’s full-orbed mission in the world (Acts 20:27). These traditional but mistaken interpretations and applications of popular Bible texts to contemporary issues have resulted in the Christian faith being “thrown out and trampled under foot by men” (Matt. 5:13).</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/myths-lies-and-half-truths" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Gary concludes his interview with Rod Martin about several recent elections and what he thinks might be coming in the near future. Rod believes that we are on the cusp of a &ldquo;golden age&rdquo; thanks to theological and worldview changes among many young men, exciting new technologies that will change life for many around the world, and many other encouraging signs for what&rsquo;s ahead.</p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/the-state-of-american-disunion-part-two" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here for today’s episode</a></p> <p><a href="https://americanvision.org/posts/the-state-of-american-disunion-part-one/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here for Part One of this interview</a></p>https://americanvision.org/posts/when-train-travel-was-a-fulfillment-of-bible-prophecy/Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:10:05 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/when-train-travel-was-a-fulfillment-of-bible-prophecy/<p>Trying to link current events to prophetic texts to predict when the “rapture” might occur or when the Second Coming might happen is like linking scientific discoveries to the Bible. When the latest scientific discovery is later nullified by a new discovery, the biblical link is made null and void. Let me offer a typical example. With the rise in technology, speedier microchips, eBooks, gargantuan storage drives, and accelerating AI centers, information on almost any subject is only a few keystrokes and a click away. Modern-day prophecy writers believe Daniel 12 describes the modern-day information age because of the phrase “knowledge will increase.” Here’s an example from long-time prophecy writer Hal Lindsey:</p> <blockquote> <p>The angel told Daniel his vision would be unintelligible to generations other than the one to whom it was addressed, a generation whose hallmark would be that of ever-increasing knowledge.</p> <p>Thanks to Bell Labs’ 1948 invention [of the transistor], Moore’s Law of Computer says that today’s computers get twice as smart every 18 months to two years. That means we get twice as smart.<strong>[1]</strong></p> <p>The angel also identified the generation of the time of the end as one in which “many would go to and fro” — the generation that witnessed the birth of rapid mass transportation.</p> <p>* * * *</p> <p>Many run “to and fro,” knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate, and more books have been written about the prophet Daniel in this generation than in the last 2,500 years combined.</p> </blockquote> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/files/10PMfr_large.png?v=1726012494" alt="Ten Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed and Answered"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>Ten Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed and Answered</h3> <p>Since the reestablishment of Israel in 1948, “end-time” prophetic speculation has been on the rise. While there is a long history of date setting, the past century has seen an exponential increase in the number of books proclaiming that the end is near. It’s time that the “Boy who cried wolf” syndrome be dealt with in a biblical way.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/ten-popular-prophecy-myths-exposed-and-answered" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Henry Morris follows a similar approach, as did other prophecy writers before him. How do we know, following Morris’ logic below, that in the distant future, people won’t be traveling even faster than they are today, and information won’t increase even more than it has in the past century?</p> <blockquote> <p>[W]e are being told that, near the time of the end, people in large numbers would be “running” — not merely “traveling,” but (literally) “racing” — from one location to another and back again. At any rate, it is profoundly true that travel and speed have increased in our times to a degree that could never have been predicted at all except by supernatural inspiration. In Isaac Newton’s day — no less than in Daniel’s day — about the fastest a man could travel would be on a swift horse. But Newton, who was probably the greatest scientist of all time, as well as a diligent student and believer of Daniel’s prophecies, claimed on the basis of this verse that men would someday be able to travel as fast as 50 miles per hour, even from country to country. A century later, Voltaire, the French anti-Christian Deist, ridiculed this statement, suggesting that Newton’s Christianity had affected his reason.</p> <p>The fact is that the scientific era which Newton, as much as any one man, introduced, has seen — just in the past century or little more — invention of the steam locomotive, then the automobile, then the airplane, now the space-ship hurtling through space at incredible speeds. This prophecy could hardly have been fulfilled more explicitly than it is now being fulfilled in this “time of the end.”</p> <p>The other half of the prophecy — “knowledge shall be increased” — could well be translated “science shall be increased,” for the two words are synonymous in meaning and derivation. The scientific and technological advances in just the past generation are legion — radio, television, electrical appliances to do almost everything, super-highways, nuclear power, computers, automation, radar, plastics, microchips, robots, and on and on. Less than two centuries ago, all the scientists in the world probably could have convened in one large auditorium; now there are millions of them, working in hundreds of scientific disciplines….<strong>[2]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Many prophetic speculators are guided more by newspaper headlines than by the Bible. John Cumming (1807-1881) practiced a similar form of “newspaper exegesis” or “headline reading” in the 19th century. Robert H. Ellison, in an insightful study of Cumming’s views on Bible prophecy, makes the following observation: “[Cumming] asserts that it is ‘neither hasty nor irrelevant’ to compare ‘ancient prophecy’ with daily press reports and states that ‘This use of the modern newspaper is all the originality I claim.’”<strong>[3]</strong> Here are some examples of Cumming’s “newspaper exegesis” as detailed by Ellison:</p> <blockquote> <p>Cumming’s use of current events to interpret ancient Scripture gets rather ingenious at times. He claims, for example, that Daniel’s phrase ‘And knowledge shall be increased’ [Dan. 12:4] can also be translated ‘And knowledge shall be flashed along’, a rendering which anticipates the telegraph, the ‘mysterious whispering wire’<strong>[4]</strong> that can transmit a message to ‘the most distant capital of Europe’ in less than an hour’s time. Even more inventive is his interpretation of the prophecy he sees in Isaiah 18:1-2—‘Woe to the land . . . beyond the rivers of Ethiopia: That sendeth ambassadors by the sea, even in vessels of bulrushes upon the waters’. He asserts that the phrase ‘vessels of bulrushes’ is literally ‘vessels of that which drinks water’, a phrase which many have perplexed the translators working in 1611 [when the King James version of the Bible was published] but which can now be seen as a reference to the steamship, a ‘vessel whose . . . motive force from beginning to end, is water’.<strong>[5]</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Cumming also saw “railway traveling”<strong>[6]</strong> to be a reference to “many shall run to and fro” (Dan. 12:4) even though trains don’t “run” and neither did the people who took the trains.</p> <p>Current prophecy writers like Lindsey are just as ingenious when they see modern transportation systems and computer technology as a fulfillment of Daniel 12:4.<strong>[7]</strong> This is such a discredited interpretation that it’s embarrassing to read that anyone actually still believes and teaches it. Even many die-hard dispensationalists reject the idea that the “increase in knowledge” refers to “the recent explosion in knowledge.”<strong>[8]</strong></p> <p>So what does “knowledge will increase” mean? James B. Jordan, in his commentary on Daniel, <em><a href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/the-handwriting-on-the-wall-a-commentary-on-the-book-of-daniel" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">The Handwriting on the Wall</a></em>, offers a helpful explanation.</p> <blockquote> <p>Those who take verse 4 as referring to events at the end of history believe that Daniel&rsquo;s prophecy is “sealed up” until that time. Only as the second coming of Christ draws near will we be able to understand prophetic truth. Hal Lindsey, of course, believes that the end is near and that he, unlike previous generations of Christian thinkers, understands the previously hidden prophetic truth. The sealing of the book, however, does not mean that it cannot be understood, but rather that the angel has told Daniel all that he is going to say at this point in history. The book is unsealed in Revelation 5-6, and in Revelation 22:10 the completed book is left unsealed because there is no more to be said.</p> <p>Prophetic speculators take note of the fact that with the coming of railroads, automobiles, and airplanes, people “go to and fro” much more than ever before in history. Scientific knowledge has also boomed in recent years. We can say, of course, that a thousand years from now people may be going to and fro even more than they do now, and there will be even more knowledge around, so how can anyone know that our own generation is the time verse 4 is pointing to?</p> <p>The real point, of course, is that this kind of “interpretation” of verse 4 is possible only by wrenching the text completely out of its context and then dreaming up possible meanings. . . . [T]here is plenty of going to and fro in Daniel 11 and that is pretty clearly what verse 4 refers to. . . .<strong>[9]</strong> [T]he increase of knowledge is pretty obvious: As time goes along and the predictions in Daniel 11 are fulfilled decade by decade, the prophecy will be better and better understood.<strong>[10]</strong></p> </blockquote> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/files/hotw-fr_large.png?v=1690637787" alt="The Handwriting on the Wall"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>The Handwriting on the Wall</h3> <p>The Handwriting on the Wall takes a Covenant Historical Approach to interpreting the imagery of God's prophecies revealed to Daniel. The prophecies of Daniel deal with the events in the Covenantal Era that were dawning in Daniel's lifetime: the Restoration Era after the exile and the return of God's people back to the land, city, and temple. There are no "historical parentheses" or "gaps", no leaps of thousands of years into the future. Nor is the book of Daniel concerned about predicting the course of European church history after the apostolic age and into our time.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/the-handwriting-on-the-wall-a-commentary-on-the-book-of-daniel" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>The Hebrew word for “knowledge” in Daniel 12:4 is not a reference to a mass collection of information or a stagnant library of data.<strong>[11]</strong> Knowledge is used as revelational information about God and His works. The Hebrew word has the meaning of “<strong>understanding</strong>, wisdom, i.e., a knowledge with focus on moral qualities and its application (Ge 2:9; Pr 2:5).”<strong>[12]</strong></p> <p>It’s most likely that the knowledge being described in Daniel 12:4 is related to the new covenant and the coming of the promised Redeemer. Since the Bible focuses on Jesus (Luke 24:25-27), we should expect that this is what God had in mind when the angel told Daniel that “the knowledge” would increase. What redemptive significance does a fatter set of encyclopedias have to do with God’s redemptive plan for His people? Zacharias and Elizabeth (1:5-25), Joseph and Mary (1:26-56), Simeon (Luke 2:25-32), and Anna (2:36-38) experienced an increase in knowledge as the realities of the old covenant unfolded in their day. The Scriptures “testify” about Jesus (John 5:39). Jesus uses Daniel 7:13 as the defining event in His ministry (Matt. 24:30), something His accusers should have understood (26:64). This is the “increase in knowledge” that the angel was describing. Prophecy writer Thomas Ice recognizes that the interpretation followed by Lindsey, Morris, and so many other pop-prophecy analysts found on the Internet have misread and misapplied Daniel 12:4.<strong>[13]</strong></p> <p>It could be argued that the New Testament itself is the increase of knowledge: “For God, who said, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness,’ is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). Then there is the negative side to the promise of an increase in revelational knowledge: “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering” (Luke 11:52).</p> <hr> <p>[1] This is a non sequiter. Just because computer chips can calculate at fast speeds does not make them “smart,” and it certainly doesn’t mean we get any smarter. A case could be made that as computers process more information at ever-faster speeds, we actually lose the need to retain information because we become reliant on electronic devices to store and recall information. See, for example, Mark Bauerlein, <em>The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future</em> (New York: Tarcher/Penguin, 2008).</p> <p>[2] Henry Morris, <em>Creation and the Second Coming</em> (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1991), 20–22.</p> <p>[3] Robert H. Ellison, “John Cumming and His Critics: Some Victorian Perspectives on the End Times,” <em>Leeds, Centre Working Papers in Victorian Studies: Platform Pulpit Rhetoric</em>, ed. Martin Hewitt, vol. 3 (Horsforth, Leeds: Leeds Centre for Victorian Studies, 2000), 83, note 20.</p> <p>[4] John Cumming, <em>Behold, The Bridegroom Cometh: The Last Warning Cry with Reasons for the Hope That is in Me</em> (London: James Nisbet &amp; Co., 1865), 357-358. Also see pages 189–190.</p> <p>[5] Ellison, “John Cumming and His Critics,” 77.</p> <p>[6] Quoted in Ellison, “John Cumming and His Critics,” 79.</p> <p>[7] Ed Hindson and Lee Fredrickson, <em>Future Wave: End Times Prophecy, and the Technology Explosion</em> (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2001); Peter Lalonde and Paul Lalonde, <em>Racing Toward . . . The Mark of the Beast: Your Money, Computers, and the End of the World</em> (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1994).</p> <p>[8] Mark Hitchcock, <em>The Complete Book of Bible Prophecy</em> (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1999), 176–177.</p> <p>[9] “run to and fro—not referring to the modern rapidity of locomotion, as some think, nor to Christian missionaries going about to preach the Gospel to the world at large [Albert Barnes], which the context scarcely admits; but, whereas now but few care for this prophecy of God, ‘at the time of the end,’ that is, near its fulfillment, ‘many shall run to and fro,’ that is, scrutinize it, running through every page. Compare Hab 2:2 [John Calvin]: it is thereby that ‘the knowledge (namely, of God’s purposes as revealed in prophecy) shall be increased.’” (Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, et al., <em>A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments</em> [Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997], Dan. 12:4).</p> <p>[10] James B. Jordan, <em>The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel</em> (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, [2007] 2010), 622–623.</p> <p>[11] “An increase in travel toward the end of the age is not the idea of the phrase ‘will go here and there.’ In a number of Old Testament passages (e.g., 2 Chr 16:9; Jer 5:1; Amos 8:12; Zech 4:10), [the] Hebrew . . . denotes ‘to go here and there’ in search of a person or thing, and that is the meaning here. An ‘intense’ searching seems indicated by the verb form. The purpose of this search will be ‘to increase knowledge.’ Yet Gabriel was not predicting a mere surge in scientific ‘knowledge,’ and so forth, in the last days. The article appears with ‘knowledge’ (lit., ‘the knowledge’), showing that a particular kind of ‘knowledge’ was intended, that is, when and how Daniel’s message is to be fulfilled. As the time of fulfillment draws nearer, the “wise” will seek to comprehend these prophecies more precisely, and God will grant understanding (‘knowledge’) to them.” (Stephen R. Miller, Daniel [Nashville: Broadman &amp; Holman Publishers, 2001], 18:321).</p> <p>[12] James Swanson, <em>Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament)</em>, electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), DBLH 1981, #6.</p> <p>[13] Thomas Ice, “Running To and Fro.” Ice gets a lot right in this article but applies its fulfillment to a post-rapture Great Tribulation.</p>https://americanvision.org/posts/the-state-of-american-disunion-part-one/Mon, 15 Jun 2026 07:23:08 -0400https://americanvision.org/posts/the-state-of-american-disunion-part-one/<p><em>Gary <a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/the-state-of-american-disunion-part-one" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">interviews</a> his friend Rod Martin about the current state of politics in this country and all the fighting (and infighting) happening between the two major political parties.</em></p> <p>Restoration of the Republic begins with the individual. Only the conversion of many can result in long-term societal restoration. I assume that you already are a Christian; that you have repented of your sins and have turned to Jesus Christ as your only hope for salvation, and are in no way depending on your own so-called “good works” to make you acceptable with God. You must recognize God as a God of love and justice—two inseparable attributes. Because God loves His people He sent Jesus, His only Son, to die for their sins. Justice necessitated the death of Jesus. Divine justice had to be satisfied. Peace with God (not the devil) had to be made (Romans 5:1). This message must be preached world-wide. No nation can experience the restoration process without repentance of sin and unconditional surrender to God through Jesus Christ.</p> <p>Regeneration is only the first step, however. Born again, we, in fact, are spiritual infants, babes in Christ: “Like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord” (1 Peter 2:2-3). Peter tells us there is a growth process. We must not remain “babes.” Many Christians never leave infancy, however, but resemble the Christians described in the epistle to the Hebrews: “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil” (Hebrews 5:12-14).</p> <p>The restoration process begins with the individual and must be total. Restoration affects body and soul (1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 6:12-14; 12:1; 1 Corinthians 6:15, 20); the understanding (Proverbs 2:2; John 6:45; Romans 12:2; Colossians 3:1-2; 1 Peter 1:13); the will (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Matthew 7:21; Mark 3:35; Colossians 1:9-12, 21); the passions (Galatians 5:24; Colossians 3:5-17); and the conscience (Titus 1:15; Hebrews 9:14).</p> <div class="product_card"> <div class="product_image"> <img src="https://store.americanvision.org/cdn/shop/products/godandgovt_large.png?v=1608039906" alt="God and Government"> </div> <div class="product_info"> <h3>God and Government</h3> <p>With a fresh new look, more images, an extensive subject and scripture index, and an updated bibliography, God and Government is ready to prepare a whole new generation to take on the political and religious battles confronting Christians today. May it be used in a new awakening of Christians in America—not just to inform minds, but to stimulate action and secure a better tomorrow for our posterity.</p> <a class="button" href="https://store.americanvision.org/products/god-and-government" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buy Now</a> </div> </div> <p>Gary interviews his friend Rod Martin about the current state of politics in this country and all the fighting (and infighting) happening between the two major political parties. Rod has been active and studying the political landscape for years and has a unique take on what&rsquo;s happening among Americans—politically and religiously.</p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/the-state-of-american-disunion-part-one" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here for today’s episode</a></p> <p><a href="https://garydemar.libsyn.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="external">Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast</a></p>