Truth about Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation”

Please forward this to Mickey Weinstein,
Here is something most people don’t know about American History.  The main reason why the America became the greatest nation in the world is because of God’s influence in the hearts of our Founders. The signers of our Constitution were all Bible believing Protestant Christians, who hated the domineering oppressive “State Religion” in England – the Roman Catholic Church, who for 1300 years (300 -1600 AD) persecuted Bible believers (people who disagreed with their false religion) all over England and Europe. That’s why they sailed across 3,000 miles of ocean to get away, and came to America where they could have freedom to worship God at home on their private property, in public at church meetings, at work on private business property, and on government (tax-payer funded) property. There were no restrictions (no “walls”) regarding when and where they could pray, read their Bibles, worship or testify about the goodness of God.
According to US historical documents written 215-240 years ago, the original intended meaning of Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation of Church and State” was only for the purpose of preventing the “State” (our newly formed Constitutional Republic) from establishing a “State Religion.”
Here is paragraph 2 from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties” [or that none of his natural [God-given] rights are in opposition to his social duties.]
In other words, “separation” here only meant administrative separation of government and religious organizations. Unfortunately, atheists, ACLU, MRFF and people who are offended by the righteousness in God’s Word, who try to hide from “the marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9), dishonestly attempt to do what our 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from doing.
The reason I love God’s Word is because 41 years ago, when I had the courage to have faith in the new birth procedure in Acts 2:38, God cleansed my soul from 35 years of guilt and many sinful desires, attitudes and addictions; and filled my with His love, joy, peace and holiness, and is preparing my soul to spend eternity in His pure holy presence.
What kind of nation would this be if everyone was fully born again and loved each other with God’s agape’ (caring) love? Please reply if you know of anything better than planning ahead? Are you glad to be an American?
(name withheld)

Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member John Compere

Brigadier General, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, US Army (Retired)
Disabled American Veteran (Vietnam)
Dear (name withheld),
The MRFF serves over 49,000 loyal & patriotic American military, veteran & civilian clients (96% of whom are Christians like you) who have requested that their lawful right to freedom from government promoted & imposed religion be respected and protected. We proudly represent them to insure that this historic American constitutional liberty is not denied them.
 
Attached you will find a rational explanation in plain language of the factual, historical & legal relationship between our Constitution, any religion & the military. We hope you find it informative.
 
Most Sincerely,
John Compere
Brigadier General, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, US Army (Retired)
Disabled American Veteran (Vietnam)
MRFF Advisory Board Member
 
“God enters by private door into every individual.” – EMERSON

OUR CONSTITUTION, ANY RELIGION & THE MILITARY

 

The mission of the military is to defend our nation against its enemies – not promote any religion. The sworn military service oath is to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States…and bear true faith and allegiance to the same” – not to a religion or its writings. The Constitution 1st Amendment prohibits our secular government or its representatives (which includes the military) from promoting a religion. Religion is private, military service and funding are public. Military personnel may privately practice a religion or no religion, but they may not lawfully use their military service, office or position to publicly promote their private religious beliefs or publicly impose them on other military members.

 

Those who disrespect, disregard or deny our US Constitution, their sworn service oath and military regulations subject themselves to disciplinary action. Additionally, a Constitution 101 class and briefing on the legal significance of their sworn oath needs to be mandatory. Those who choose not to support and defend our Constitution, honor their sworn oath or follow regulations have the right to seek a career in the civilian sector for private pay. This problem seldom arises when military leadership demonstrates intelligence, integrity and loyalty to the mission, oath and regulations.

 

The United States Constitution 1st Amendment provides 3 basic religious liberties, respectively, for all Americans:

 

  1. Freedom from religion – our secular government is prevented from “respecting ” an establishment of religion (promoting, supporting, favoring or endorsing any religion). It is the right of all Americans to be free from religion imposed by the government or its representatives;

 

  1. Freedom of religion – our secular government is prevented from “prohibiting” free exercise of religion. It is the right of all Americans to privately practice any religion or no religion provided it does not violate the rights of other Americans. It does not include the right of the government or its representatives to impose religion on Americans; and

 

  1. Freedom to speak about religion – our secular government is prevented from “abridging” freedom of speech. It is the right of all Americans to speak publicly about religion provided it does not violate the rights of other Americans. It does not include the right of the government or its representatives to impose religious speech on Americans.

 

There should be no misunderstanding of the operative verbs in these first three clauses of the 1st Amendment. All one has to do is first read them and then look up the definition of “respecting ”, “prohibiting ” or “abridging ” in any American dictionary.

 

Historic separation of church and state is a fundamental liberty of free people that keeps private religion out of public government and public government out of private religion. It was clearly the intent of our Founders as confirmed by the Constitution and its 1st Amendment, indisputably documented by countless public records over 3 centuries, publicly acknowledged by every American President since Thomas Jefferson, continuously confirmed by our courts, and permanently embedded in the established law of our land. The Constitution pointedly provides “no religious test ” shall ever be required as a qualification to any public office or public trust (Article VI). These are self-evident American truths history deniers and religious revisionists intentionally ignore and deceitfully dispute.

 

Simply stated, we Americans have the right to our own private religious or non-religious beliefs, but we must respect the right of others to determine and enjoy their beliefs (the same right we cherish for ourselves). This is a timeless universal principle known as “THE GOLDEN RULE” predating institutional religion and even commanded by Jesus in every New Testament version (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31). The self-righteous obsession of radicalized religionists to publicly force their private religious beliefs on others without extending them this basic human liberty exhibits the height of hypocrisy, rejects moral teaching and creates continuous civil conflict.

 

Founder and 3rd President Thomas Jefferson penned the classic public confirmation – “Believing…religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God…legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion’…thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” (Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress, January 1, 1802).

 

The late Republican President Ronald Reagan acknowledged, accepted and applauded this critical Constitutional liberty in a public speech – “We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.” (Valley Stream, New York, October 26, 1984).

 

Christian evangelist Billy Graham in a 1985 sermon at Washington National Cathedral praised constitutional separation of church and state – “We enjoy the separation of church and state and no sectarian religion has ever been and we pray God, ever will be imposed upon us.

 

Unfortunately, the wisdom of the late American humorist Will Rogers is too often applicable these days – “There is no argument in the world that carries the hatred that a religious belief one does.” (“The Best of Will Rogers – A Collection of Rogers’ Wit & Wisdom Astonishingly Relevant for Today’s World”, Bryan Sterling, M. Evans & Company, 1979, page 193).

 

 

John Compere

Brigadier General, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, US Army (Retired); former Chief Judge, US Army Court of Military Review; disabled American veteran (Vietnam); Military Religious Freedom Foundation Advisory Board Member; and Texas rancher.


Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Joan Sllish

Dear (name withheld)

You have been so sorely misinformed that I don’t know where to start.
 
“The signers of our Constitution were all Bible believing Protestant Christians, who hated the domineering oppressive “State Religion” in England – the Roman Catholic Church, who for 1300 years (300 -1600 AD) persecuted Bible believers (people who disagreed with their false religion) all over England and Europe. That’s why they sailed across 3,000 miles of ocean to get away, and came to America where they could have freedom to worship God at home.”
 
No, they weren’t all Christians and the state religion of England was Anglican. They broke away from the Catholic Church.
 
Jefferson wrote the Statute of Religious Freedom, whose preamble indicted state religion, noting that “false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time” have been maintained through the church-state. To “compell a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”
 
In his Notes on Virginia (1782), Jefferson wrote: “Millions of innocent men, women and children since the introduction of Christianity have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned. Yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. . .”
 
The Treaty of Tripoli was signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796.It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797; a mere 8 years since our Constitution went into effect. If what was written was wrong in anyway, there would have been uproar. But, it passed unanimously and confirmed that America was not founded on Christianity.
 
Treaty of Tripoli: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
 
The Constitution reflects our founder’s views of a secular government protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief.
 
The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, “The idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety.” 
 
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
 
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
 
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787-1788
“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion
“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.” 
James Madison; Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments
 
“God has appointed two kinds of government in the world, which are distinct in their nature, and ought never to be confounded together; one of which is called civil, the other ecclesiastical government.”
Isaac Backus, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, 1773
 
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”
James Madison 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments
 
“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
 
As defenders of the Constitution we fight for the Separation of Church and State.
 
“…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” (Article I, III)
This means that from the President to Congress to the military – no one’s job is based on their religion.
 
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (Establishment Clause), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (Free Exercise Clause).”(First Amendment)
 
The Establishment Clause means that you cannot favor one religion over another even though it is in the majority. This clause respects the RIGHTS of all religions. Our military is SECULAR and there are people of other faiths that don the uniform that love this country. 
 
The Free Exercise Clause (which is subservient to the Establishment Clause) means that our soldiers are free to exercise any religion they want or no religion at all but cannot elevate one God above others.
 
“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808) ME 16:320. 
 
This is his second known use of the term “wall of separation,” here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter.
 
This wording of the original was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause.
 
“Jefferson’s concept of “separation of church and state” first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, “The word ‘religion’ is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted.” The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the “separation” paragraph from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, “coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.
 
In 1878 “separation of church and state” became part of the Establishment Clause by law.
 
. The Supreme Court heard the Lemon v. Kurtzman case in 1971 and ruled in favor of the Establishment Clause.
 
Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the Lemon Test:
 
Government action violates the Establishment Clause unless it: 
1. has a significant secular (i.e., non-religious) purpose, 
2. does not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion 
3. does not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion
 
Parker v. Levy: 
 “This Court has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society… While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections. … The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it… Speech [in any form] that is protected in the civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command.  If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected.” (Emphasis added) Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 1974
 
AFI (Air Force Instruction) 1-1, Section 2.12:
 2.12. Balance of Free Exercise of Religion and Establishment Clause. Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for their own free exercise of religion, including individual expressions of religious beliefs, and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. They must ensure their words and actions cannot reasonably be construed to be officially endorsing or disapproving of, or extending preferential treatment for any faith, belief, or absence of belief. 
 
To use our military to advance the Christian religion above all others is in violation of the Constitution (Establishment Clause), Reynolds v. U.S., Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Lemon Test, Parker v. Levy and AFI 1-1, Section 2.12.
 
Bill Bright made up the 4 Spiritual Laws (sinner’s prayer) in 1952.
 
Every Christian of every denomination is “saved” or “born again” who repents of his sins and believes in Jesus. All denominations have a Statement of Faith that covers what the “born again” tract states, plus more.
 
Read Mark 16:16, Acts 2:47, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9, Ephesians 2:8 and Matthew 25:31-46 the zinger against the Christians that fail to take care of the poor and needy and are smugly set in their eternal salvation. For James 2:14-20 says “faith without works is dead.”
 
We are neither an atheist organization nor are we anti-Christian. Mikey is Jewish (and prays to the same Father we do 3 times a day) and 80% of the Board, Advisory Board, volunteers and supporters (300 in total) of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) are Christians. In fact, 96% of our 50,000+ soldier clients are mainline Christians and we fight for them more than any other belief or non-belief.
 
We also have many honorable and distinguished military personnel, whom we rely on for their expertise on religion in the military, on our Board and Advisory Board.
 
Check out our Mission Statement
 
Yes, our nation would be a better place if we followed Jesus’ commandment to “Love our neighbors as ourselves.”
 
And, it would be a better place if historical revisionists (David Barton, for one, whose books have been debunked) would stop distorting, omitting and outright lying to further their agenda to make our founding seem like it was founded on Christianity.
 
Joan Slish
MRFF Advisory Board Member

Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Mike Farrell

Hi (name withheld),

Your belief is quite clear and you are welcome to it. No one here would disagree with your right to believe as you choose. In fact, our mission is to see to it that everyone has the same right to her or his own personal belief system.

You are mistaken, however, in claiming that “The signers of our Constitution were all Bible believing Protestant Christians.” Some were Christians, some were Deists, others may have had other belief systems. I suspect your assertion that they all “hated the domineering oppressive “State Religion” in England” overstates the case as well, though it clearly describes your own view of those whose beliefs differ from yours.

As to the reasons people crossed the sea, there were many. Religion was foremost for some, but certainly not all.

Your interpretation of Thomas Jefferson’s paragraph is a bit self-serving, I would suggest. You choose to believe he meant it is simply an administrative function, while lumping together a number of groups and individuals about whom you clearly know nothing, and casually condemn them all for being “offended by the righteousness of God’s word.” You somehow managed to avoid including in the offending group the United Stats Supreme Court, which has long upheld the importance of the separation of church and state.

I have to say it saddens me to see such condemnatory arrogance spout from the mouth (or in this case fingers) of one who claims to have been saved by God’s word. It makes one wonder about just what the process of salvation involves for some people, and what it seems to justify.

I am, per your question, proud to be an American, but I am at the same time deeply embarrassed by the astonishing arrogance and inflated self-importance of some of my fellow countrymen and women who assume an attitude of superiority over others based on thinnest of premises.

I won’t bother Mr. Weinstein with this. He has more important things to attend to.

Mike Farrell

(MRFF Board of Advisors)


 

Mr Compere,
That is a very informative article, and I agree that no one should force their religion on anyone.  But what is wrong with military personnel having a Bible on their desk, and freely conversing and testifying in a good natured way to help someone understand their point of view if they are willing to listen, and benefit from each other’s understanding of the Bible?
I was only commenting on what appeared in a booklet I read today (“EXPOSED, Mickey Weinstein, The Man Plotting to Purge the Military of Religion” by Faith and Action, Rev Rob Schenck), about Mickey’s extreme hatred of Christianity, that he was violently against any expression of personal religious beliefs in the military, and that any religious expression was evil. Is this true about Mickey? Will you please forward my letter to Mickey and have him reply to me? Thanks.
(name withheld)

 


Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member John Compere

The lawful purpose of a military member on military duty at a military desk in a military building is to perform his or her military duty in accordance with the military mission – not to proselytize private religious beliefs or religious writings. Our military provides chapels & chaplains on all military installations for those who “choose” to participate in religious worship or education. Like our diverse America, the military consists of persons of all religious or non-religious beliefs & practices – not just those who believe in one of the countless versions of Christianity.
 
As a loyal & patriotic disabled American veteran who was born, raised & educated as an American Christian, I respect the right of each military member to determine & enjoy her or his own religious or non-religious beliefs & would never disrespect & distract military colleagues by self-righteously imposing my private beliefs upon them during official duty. Moreover, we all take a sworn oath to support & defend our secular Constitution & perform the secular mission of our secular military for our secular  government – not to proselytize our private religious beliefs during public military duty time.
 
If you wish to learn more about our MRFF Founder & President, please check our website www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org or read his books “With God On Our Side” (Michael L. Weinstein, Thomas Dunne Books, 2006) & “No Snowflake In An Avalanche” (Michael L. Weinstein, Vireo Books, 2012). Our Co-Founder & wife of the President has also written a book about Christian hate-mail received by the MRFF that will shock your moral sensibility (To the Far Right Christian Hater…You Can Be a Good Speller or Hater, But you Can’t Be Both”, Bonnie Weinstein, Rare Bird Books, 2015).
 
It is sadly ironical that 96% of our clients are Christians while 100% of the hate-mail received comes from radicalized fundamentalist Christians. The judgmental Rob Schenck is woefully uniformed (or misinformed) about Mikey Weinstein. The attached illustrations accurately depict most MRFF critics.
 
Man is the Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion – several of them.” – MARK TWAIN (American humorist)
John Compere
Brigadier General, US Army (Retired)

John,
Thank you for information about Rob Schneck. Also, I am curious about your teaching of the new birth procedure in Acts 2:38. Some people teach that was just for the 1st century. What do you teach?
(name withheld)

Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member John Compere
Dear (name withheld),
My teaching includes that Acts (including 2:38) is a part of a New Testament compilation of oral stories (hearsay) first written in Greek by unknown, non-eyewitness Jewish authors long after the fact who were marketing their own reform version of Judaism from the Abrahamic revealed religion of the Old Testament. They are not factual or historic accounts, were not intended to be & should not be considered as such. The original texts had no named authors, punctuation, indentation, paragraphs, section headings, or colored print. That was all artificially added much later by religious publishers. Moreover, there are no original biblical texts remaining. All we have are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies, etc, full of mistranslations, deletions, editing, alterations, modifications & corruption to conform to the man-made doctrinal dogma of the countless varieties of Christianity. To take any Bible version literally today is completely unfounded & a serious mistake.
 
Attached is a copy of my most recent lesson plan. Best wishes for the New Year.
John
<MORAL BEHAVIOR.doc>

John,
I’m not involved in the subjective realm of proselytizing, trying to convince other people to believe what I believe or trying to win arguments. But I live in an objective realm. I love truth and relationships that are strengthened by reconciliation, where people are willing to look at each other’s portion of truth and learn from each other. For example, if two people look at the Grand Teton Mtn, one from the north and the other from the south, they will see what looks like two different mountains, one full of spires, and one with a 500 ft north face with a talus slope. They could live the rest of their lives in bitter arguements about who is right and wrong. But if both honestly look from both points of view, they will grow together in their intellectual and emotional relationship, agree and be reconciled.
So please consider the following: if after you understand my message, you know something better, please reply. If you don’t know something better, please attend an Apostolic Pentecostal church near you, and see 1st century Christianity in action, and try to continue learning.
After studying the Bible for 41 years, meticulously studying dictionary definitions of Old Testament Hebrew words and New Testament Greek words, I find the NT to be very consistant and in agreement with the OT prophecies. The only “church” in the New Testament is the “ekklesia” (Greek Dictionary definition – “called out assembly”) of believers who were (Bible context meaning) “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for [in order to receive] remission of [forgiveness of past] sins” and who received “the gift of the Holy Ghost” exactly like the original believers did in Acts 2:4. These and all who believed the gospel and new birth procedure were added to the “church” that God will save (please study Acts 2:47 > 2:38-42 > 2:4).
Acts was written by Luke, recording what he saw and heard, and testimonies of other Apostles, and I feel like you are a bit sarcastic about rejecting the validity of New Testament Scriptures. There may have been lots of “copies,” but the final result is very spiritually accurate and consistent with the Old Testament process of atonement and prophecies of a New Covernant.
Ther best way to understand Biblical Christianity is start where they did, with the complete new birth in Acts Ch 2, which is the focal point of the New Testament. It summarizes OT prophecies of a New Covenant and Jesus’ promises to his disciples, and is referred to in Acts Ch 3-28 and in all the Epistles written to the churches that began in Acts.
Catholics and protetants who have not experienced this new birth, tend to take New Testament Scriptures out of context (borrow them to support their own partial birth religion), attempting to prove that Acts 2:4, 38 are only for the 1st century, which is a dishonest thing to do.
Our New Testament was written by 8 men (Apostles) who received the new birth “of water and of the Spirit” (John 3:5, 2:4, 38), who were water “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission (forgiveness of past sins) and received the gift of the Holy Ghost speaking in other tongues as the Spirit of God gives utterance,” and who were “added to the church God will save” when He returns again for His church (Acts 2:47, 1 Cor 15:51). The New Testament was written to the Apostolic Pentecostal church leaders, to those believers who received the same new birth the writers received. Acts 2:38 is still the only new birth procedure that saves souls from the guilt and influences sin, and prepares us to spend eternity in the pure holy presence of the God who created us. Do you know of anything in more modern religions that is better than this?
(name withheld)

Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member John Compere
Dear (name withheld),
I respect your right to interpret your Bible version as well as determine & enjoy your own religious or non-religious beliefs in any way you choose. Likewise, I expect you to respect my right to do the same.
 
That is our precious American liberty & the reason for our US Constitution 1st Amendment. It first provides freedom from religion and, secondly, freedom of religion provided it does not violate the rights of others. You should not be able to impose your religious beliefs on me and I should not be able to impose my beliefs on you. It is why religion has been allowed to freely flourish in our blessed Country as opposed to many countries, past & present, where religion is either required or forbidden. Conflicts always arise when this freedom is disrespected & disregarded.
 
That is the reason why the MRFF proudly protects the constitutional rights of Americans (who request it) to their freedom from religion and freedom of religion or non-religion.
 
These words of Founder & 3rd President Thomas Jefferson are just as true today as when he wisely wrote them:
 
It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others…I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. On the contrary we are bound you, I, and everyone, to make common cause , even with error itself, to maintain the common right of freedom of conscience.
(Public Letters, Library of Congress, 1803).
 
Sincerely,
John

Share this page:

Commenter Account Access

  • Register for a commenter account
    (Not required to post comments, but will save you time if you're a regular commenter)
  • Log in using your existing account
  • Click here to edit your profile and change your password
  • All comments are subject to our Terms of Use

3 Comments

  1. American Patriot

    To Gen Snowflake Compere,

    Your comments concerning manuscript evidence would get you burned at the stake for being a heretic long ago, but we actually have thousands of original documents today of scripture which version today are translated from. I would recommend that the General read this article proving that he is wrong.
    http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html

  2. G

    Gee AP are all those documents located in a religious document museum? I agreed with Compere’s view regarding the original documentation of both the Old and New Testaments.

  3. Tom O

    “The signers of our Constitution were all Bible believing Protestant Christians, who hated the domineering oppressive “State Religion” in England – the Roman Catholic Church”
    The state religion of England after 1534 was the Anglican church: Catholicism was outlawed in England after that. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England, two were Roman Catholics (D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists. The other 4 apparently didn’t belong to any church.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*