French protestors were rioting in the streets; rebellion was in the air. Thousands of Frenchmen of all classes had been executed, many by beheading, including women and children. Royalists (supporters of King Louis XVI) felt the monarchy permanently slipping away. Roman Catholic Church leaders had lost their privileged positions, including much of their lands. The commoners were heady with new laws that gave them power after their powerlessness.

Fear, anger, hatred, and resentment reigned in Paris as mobs roamed and often controlled the streets. The common people wanted to keep what concessions they had gained, and the aristocrats and the church leaders wanted to gain back control.

The French Revolution (planned for decades by Freemasons, Jacobins, and assorted atheistic God-haters) was out of control. Even the revolutionary leaders lost power and were themselves marched to the guillotine that was always ripe with blood from recent victims.

The protesters (revolutionaries) had three goals: destroy the government, the church, and the traditional home. Their battle cry was liberty, equality, fraternity, which was admirable, but extremists turned it into rivers of blood.

France was about to make a decision that would decide their destiny: would they follow America’s “revolution” of a decade earlier, or would they heed the rantings of radicals of past years and choose to be ruled by a strongman?

Americans wanted independence, while the French wanted insurrection. Americans had an intense love for freedom; Frenchmen had an intense hatred for the Roman Catholic Church.

An obscure soldier saw an opportunity in the chaos and took it. Like many world leaders, Napoleon Bonaparte rose to power via revolution. Napoleon’s battles were at first against his fellow Frenchmen, as he sought to defend the republican government that had replaced the monarchy with the beheading of King Louis XVI on January 21, 1793. He would later destroy and take over the government.

Napoleon was in command of soldiers in Paris and realized that the city had exploded, and anarchy was about to take control. He ordered his soldiers to use cannon against the rebels. At the first blast, the crowd scattered as about 300 royalists died in the street. Historian Thomas Carlyle, in his classic history of the revolution, declared that Napoleon won with a “whiff of grapeshot,” and in doing so, effectively ended the French Revolution.

It did not end there. This was Napoleon’s stepping stone to absolute power. He went on to bleed Europe for more than ten years before he was stopped by the Duke of Wellington at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. The British exiled Napoleon to the island of Saint Helena where he died six years later.
The Scourge of Europe was dead at 51.

While I don’t have a law enforcement background, I believe it is time for a whiff, just a whiff of grapeshot, to restore order to city streets. Not to kill people, although that could happen; people are already dying during the “peaceful” protests. Mayors and Governors are mainly responsible for the disruption, disorder, and destruction, and they have proved ineffective in Minneapolis, Portland, Chicago, and about 30 other cities.

American cities have been invaded. Many concerned demonstrators who want better black/white relationships are being used by low-class violent hooligans organized by Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa, sworn enemies of liberty, equality, fraternity—the motto of the French Revolution. Moreover, burning cities, broken windows, and barricaded streets do not reflect the motto. Not in Paris or Philadelphia. Not in Marseilles or Minneapolis.

More than thirty cities have been invaded by barbarians: Atlanta, Albuquerque, Austin, Bakersfield, Boston, Chicago, Chattanooga, Columbus, Dallas, Fort Worth, Des Moines, Denver, Detroit, District of Columbia, Houston, Los Angeles, Louisville, Memphis, Minneapolis, New York City, Oakland, Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, San Antonio, and others. Most of the protests are not peaceful, but disorderly, destructive, dangerous, even deadly.

Two things are common with those invaded cities: Democratic control and strict gun laws. Another is official duplicity (a kind word for lying). When politicians and the media speak about the death of Floyd, they usually repeat that he was “unarmed,” but they never reveal that he was a lifetime felon and was resisting arrest. Most of the other Blacks killed by police officers were criminals like Floyd. If those officials were responsible leaders and were honestly concerned with all lives, they would remind Blacks and Whites to obey, respect, and cooperate with police officials.

Montesquieu was a French legislator whose Spirit of the Laws helped create a desire for freedom, wrote, “When the laws have ceased to be executed, as this can only come from the corruption of the republic, the state is already lost.” America could now be where the French were: standing on the edge of a cliff. Will it be law and order or mob rule? It is time for local officials to take control. I hope others don’t die in the attempt, but people are dying anyway. Any deaths, however unfortunate, should have a payoff—peace and order and jail for all unruly, violent, participants.

It is shocking that city and state officials have been so lenient, even cooperative with violent protesters. It is unprecedented, unnecessary, and unfortunate, and it is time for disruptive protesters to get a “whiff of grapeshot.”

Difficult times usually produce or reveal great leaders. Napoleon was at the right place at the right time and ended the French Revolution with a “whiff of grapeshot.” However, he rode from that encounter of grapeshot to put fear in the hearts of millions of Europeans instead of making France a free nation no longer under the heel of an authoritative king. Grapeshot followed Napoleon all over Europe, Russia, and Egypt.

Tragically, those in control (that changed quickly) followed the ruminations of Georges-Jacques Danton, Jean-Paul Marat, and Maximilien Robespierre instead of believers in personal freedom that American leaders followed: Montesquieu, John Locke, and Sir William Blackstone.

As American cities have been invaded by modern vandals and law and order have been suspended, it is time for President Trump to exercise his authority and protect us against enemies, foreign and domestic by a “whiff of grapeshot.” Napoleon ended the beheading spree of the revolution, and Trump can end this anarchist rebellion and should do so even if someone is killed.

Whatever it takes, Trump must restore order and prosecute those responsible for the violence resulting in destruction and death. I believe he can then be assured of reelection in November. If order is not restored soon, America will be condemned to dragging the corpse of Joe Biden on our backs for at least four years.

Or, until his family moves him to the Old Folks Home.

If violent protesters refuse to obey the law, Trump should give them a “whiff of grapeshot” that will save us from the destruction like that of the French. Peaceful protesters are welcome; violent protesters will be jailed if they don’t scatter. All those arrested will be prosecuted.

I prefer four more years of kept promises, a strong economy, full employment, abortion limited if not stopped, a truly conservative Supreme Court, and immigration under control.

If that requires a “whiff of grapeshot,” let’s have it now before it breaks out in the suburbs because it would need much more than a “whiff.”

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 18 books, the most recent Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! eBook is available here with the printed edition (and other titles) at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D.; and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles, and click here to support his work with a donation.)

No honest historian, especially church historian, will declare that the New Testament churches were part of a denominational structure. Each church was totally independent of others although there was much cooperation among them because they believed and practiced the same thing and there was genuine love for each other. As the Roman Empire started to crumble, the independent churches began to look to the Church in Rome for leadership, leadership that eventually became authoritarian.

The Roman Church did not blossom until hundreds of years after the death of Christ. To those who find that shocking, even untrue, I refer them to Edward Gibbon, Will Durant, Kenneth Latourette, and other famous historians. Most of the independent churches looked to Rome for leadership but there were thousands of independent churches all over the Empire and many held to Baptist principles–others were weird and some were heretical–as today.

I would be delighted (not disappointed or discouraged) if every liberal church voluntarily closed their doors permanently tomorrow because error is dangerous and is to be eschewed; however, I would defend those churches if the government tried to close them. As to the few denominations that teach Bible truth, it goes without saying that they are reaching some people for Christ, teaching morality, and opposing the avalanche of evil. However, denominations do not have a biblical mandate for their existence. Would I want Bible-preaching but denominational churches to close their doors? Of course not.

I recently wrote a column about the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and the Baptist Bible Fellowship International (BBFI) and was somewhat critical of them–even the “independent” BBFI. I have been loosely associated with the BBFI since 1960 and owe them much. Three of my children, a son-in-law, and a granddaughter were educated at their Springfield, Missouri college. Three of my grown children know the pastor of High Street Baptist who recently took his Independent Baptist Church into the SBC. One of my daughters was a classmate of that pastor. So, I did not rush into this issue without thinking and praying about it. I tried to write the column carefully showing love, sensitivity, and respect for both groups. I expected to be shot at by both sides and my expectation became a reality.

The professed independent BBFI has developed the accouterments of a denomination with their unusual growth, influence, and money. Anytime a “fellowship” has official colleges, mission boards, retirement programs, a publishing house, etc., it slowly morphs into a denomination. One big difference in a fellowship and a denomination is there is no vote required to be part of a fellowship. A church has to legally cut ties with a denomination to be free.

I pointed out that we have close relatives who are SBC members, and some of our oldest friends belong to SBC churches. The first Christians I ever met were an uncle and aunt who were SBC members. Moreover, the SBC has made an incredible impact upon America and the world. The SBC has produced some of the greatest preachers who ever opened a Bible. I would not want to see them close their doors, but I would like for them to disavow, disassociate, and depart from the denominational structure. Of course, that won’t happen on a large scale.

I stirred up a bunch of people beginning with pastors who receive my columns that are published on many Internet sites. As expected, I had mixed reactions from email and social media: “Right on,” “Amen,” “Well said, my friend,” “Excellent,” but others wanted to be removed from my master list. Others thought I had mischaracterized the SBC. It is interesting that no critic spoke to the absence of denominations in the Bible; the impersonal missions program; women preachers; the Reformed Theology; the corruption of their colleges; etc.

One of my readers said that the SBC does not own the corrupt Baptist colleges but then, I didn’t say they did. Although the colleges associated with their six seminaries are SBC connected, the many other SBC colleges are authorized, financed, and run by the various state associations. Whether they are owned by the state SBC or the national SBC, the college corruption is a reflection on all SBC churches. To their credit, many informed SBC leaders have adamantly opposed corrupt colleges for decades. No informed honest person defends the theological corruption that has been going on for decades at Baylor, Mercer, Wake Forest, etc. These schools no longer are connected with the SBC.

The SBC has received national and international praise for their disaster relief ministry, a group of 70,000 volunteers who provide food, water, child care, laundry, rebuilding, and repairs to damaged homes, removing debris, and showing Christian kindness to hurting people–without charge. It is the third largest disaster relief agency in the nation. When I see the yellow-shirted volunteers, often the first to reach a disaster, joyously helping discouraged, distressed, and often destitute people, I am delighted to know my brother-in-law is one of them. This kind of work is something that Independent Baptists can’t do on a large scale because there is no hierarchy or authority to implement a plan. Some would say that that is a weakness of Independent Baptists.

So, the SBC deserves many kudos for their disaster relief program, but if we receive roses for good deeds, then it is reasonable to receive rocks when we do wrong.

Just this week, I heard a fantastic message by a local (Chattanooga) SBC pastor. It was scriptural, interesting, well developed, and maybe overall better than those of many pastors from Independent Baptist Churches. SBC preaching, scholarship, godly living, dedication, ability, and motives are not an issue. The issue is denominationalism with its accruing problems.

My critics will say that the SBC has no authority over individual churches and that is supposed to be right; however, it is not so. While hundreds of SBC churches go their merry way without any contact with the SBC other than giving at least $600 dollars per year to them, each local church must take some responsibility for the actions, aims, and associations of the mother group. Just as the church in Rome was a help and influence to struggling churches around the Empire, it eventually became an authoritative head. In the SBC, there is an influence that borders on authority. We’ve seen that movie before and it didn’t end well.

Realistically, few SBC pastors are going to leave their denomination, so Independent Baptists must love, respect, and honor them even while we believe the Bible pattern is local, independent, autonomous churches.

Let the SBC pastors do their job seeking to honor Christ while Independent Baptists do the same thing. For sure, we do not need to fuss, falsify, or fight. However, while we recognize the good job that most of the SBC pastors are doing, we will not join them in their denominationalism and will maintain our independence as many churches have done historically.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Moreover, the Church owns several billion dollars’ worth of gold according to the United Nations World Magazine with a large portion of it stored as gold ingots at the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank with the remainder stockpiled in Swiss and British banks.

The Vatican is headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church and represents 1.2 billion people in 180 nations of the world. The Vatican is a two-and-a-half square mile complex on the Tiber River in Rome.

The Church’s real estate holdings are enormous in that they own local churches (220,000 worldwide), massive cathedrals (3,300 worldwide), and colleges (1,358 worldwide) along with monasteries and nunneries all over the globe. The Church has been squirrelling away billions of dollars of inheritance from the faithful that have been invested worldwide for hundreds of years .

Apart from the horded gold, thousands of church buildings, thousands of estates, they own thousands of art, books, sculpture, and relics that are impossible to even guess their value.

The Roman Catholic Church’s emphasis upon relics is an embarrassment to sane people. In 1881, The New York Times published an article condemning “the silly worship of relics” and recounted an amusing anecdote of two rival French monasteries that each possessed a head of John the Baptist! The monks, with amazing mental gymnastics, explained this uncomfortable detail by saying that the first skull belonged to John as a man while the smaller skull was from “when he was a boy.” Sure.

I saw one of John’s skulls in a mosque in Damascus although I’m not sure which skull it was! Not sure what Muslims are doing with John’s skull. He sure would pound them for having multiple wives since preaching against King Herod’s adultery with his brother’s wife was what got John beheaded.

One expert whose work was financed by National Geographic said, “There are about eight or nine skulls of John the Baptist out there. He added with a massive understatement, “They can’t be all John the Baptist.” Even this simple Baptist preacher can understand that!

A church in St. Omer boasted of having the lance that pierced His side; some manna that dropped from Heaven to feed the Jews; Aaron’s rod; and the original stone Ten Commandments! Three different churches in France boasted of the complete corpse of Mary Magdalen and five different French churches boasted of the relic of Christ’s circumcision! One cathedral boasts of having some hairs of the Lord’s beard and the left arm of John the Baptist while other monasteries claim to have the right arm. If some enterprising monks got to work, they might be able to put John back together again.

Calvin wrote of His Holy Blood that was “exhibited in more than a hundred places.” That is not only relic worship but blasphemy. But each item would sell at a premium and if they sold everything quickly, they could always “discover” more relics.

In Bethlehem they claim to have a drop of Mary’s milk and a 17th century painting shows a statue of Mary holding baby Jesus as she squirts milk into the mouth of a male worshipper standing below! Great shot!

During the mid-fourth century, Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315-386) wrote that “already the whole world is filled with fragments of the wood of the Cross.” More than forty shrouds of Jesus exist, so the story goes. Exeter Cathedral displayed parts of the candle that the angel of the Lord used to light the tomb of Jesus and fragments of the bush from which God spoke to Moses! I seem to remember the words of P. T. Barnum that are most appropriate here.

The Roman Catholic Church is the wealthiest corporation in the world. Nothing compares to it yet it was allegedly started by Jesus Christ. So, the former carpenter, turned itinerate preacher, is the source for the wealthiest institution on earth? Doesn’t pass the smell test.

We are expected to believe that Christ lived and died poor and passed on to Peter and future popes the office that permitted them to wear gold embroidered silk robes and possess wealth and treasures unknown and have a mansion with 1100 rooms!

Francis, it’s time to make history, secular and religious, by having the biggest and richest yard sale in history at St. Peter’s Square and at the same time clean out your closets of those relics that are only gathering dust. Sell everything. Christ was the poorest of the poor and your church is the richest of the rich. Get poor again and gain a little credibility. On with the yard sale! I’ll see you in St. Peter’s Square.

Next, I hope to attend a yard sale sponsored by some of the super-rich television evangelists with the proceeds going to poor non-Catholics. Get ready Benny, Trinity, Morris, Kenneth, Creflo, Joel, and Paula.

I’ll not hold my breath since I don’t look good in blue and I don’t trust the televangelists any more than I trust Francis!

(Boys’ new book, The God Haters, will be published in hardback on Oct. 21 by Barbwire Books and on Amazon.com as an eBook.)

Rome was an empire of legions, law, luxury, and license where Christians were hated because of their creed, conduct, and character; however, what generated massive persecution was their refusal to accept emperor-worship or adhere to laws that conflicted with the Bible. Diocletian was considered a god and was addressed as “Most Sacred Lord” and visitors to his court had to kneel and kiss the hem of his garment. Of course, many high-minded Romans smiled at the pretentious emperors but the Roman elite could live with the regal pretentions since it did not conflict with their convictions–-and it was safer. Christians were offended and many refused to recognize his deity. The fact is that Christians have always been hated even while they were respected for their courage, character, and commitment!

Christians could be and often were taken into court as violators of standing legislation against “treason, sacrilege, membership in a foreign cult, and the practice of forbidden magic, or for belonging to an unauthorized association.” Many of the charges against them were bogus such as the practice of magic but often the spurious charges turned into convictions with penalties that often resulted in the death penalty.

In 250, Emperor Decius tried to restore pagan religion by requiring sacrifice to the pagan gods and those who complied were given certificates confirming their obedience to the government. Some Christians who did not sacrifice purchased certificates attesting that they had done so. Those certificates, or libelli, were required of all inhabitants of the Empire, citizens and non-citizens. Tertullian declared that some churches bought themselves off en masse! Still other Christians sent their servants to sacrifice for them. So, Christians have not always taken a principled position but then no one says they did. Christians are not perfect, only born again, and when we sin, we must recognize it, repent of it and refuse to do it again.

During the days in which Christianity was spreading, the Roman Empire abounded with voluntary associations, collegia. Many of them were organized for the public good and all were associated with some pagan god and they met in a pagan temple. Some associations provided their members with funeral services; some were business related while others were for athletics. Often members shared a common meal. One historian wrote, “Some were recognized by the government, collegia licita. Some, collegia illicita, were not so licensed.” Most churches refused official approval and were hated as trouble makers, atheists, and outlaws.

In 257, under Emperor Valerian, Christians were threatened with death if they met in their church assemblies or if they even entered Christian cemeteries! Moreover, specific action was taken against the associations of Christians. The churches had been among the collegia illicita, which meant that they were not officially licensed and could be prosecuted at the whim of the sitting dictator.

Some churches formed funeral associations to provide some semblance of legitimacy but that did not guarantee official acceptance or deceive anyone. One historian wrote, “Now by the edict, Christian assemblies were singled out for proscription and the loophole of meeting as burial clubs was stopped up.” Roman officials were not deceived by the “funeral clubs,” since they were obviously churches.

When many independent churches became “the Church” approved by the government, there was a change from simple preachers to secularized priests, from organism to organization. It was now Church, not Christ. There were some Church Fathers but no Great Missionaries. Education replaced evangelism. The Cross had been the symbol of shame and ignominy but by the time of Constantine it became the sign of privilege and prestige and power. The clergy were exempt from military service and taxes, so of course, many wealthy people became priests. The church leaders were worldly, wealthy, but not wise. With these changes in morals and mores there came a change in motives and methods. No longer was godly living preferred, preached, and practiced but the church leaders planned to set up a kingdom “here and now.” Religion and politics were now intermingled. Like today, the church was worldly and the government used the church for its own purposes.

As the Roman Empire crumbled it was only natural for fearful citizens to look for safety, stability, and security and they chose the Christian religion to meet their needs. Troubled officials hugged the church and the church, liking the embrace, hugged back. Thus began an illicit affair that destroyed churches, families, even nations. That illicit affair between church and state is going on today.

Genuine Christians are still hated because of creed, conduct, and character. We demand that the abortion holocaust cease; that marriage has always been, is now, and will always be between a man and a woman; that government butt out of our homes and permit parents to rear decent, loving, and obedient children; and that all governments stay out of our churches and Christian schools.

Most modern churches are willing to follow government requirements to keep them in good relationship with the authorities. It is evident that many modern churches are far from the New Testament church model. No one wants to be hated and considered as the Apostle Paul wrote, “the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.”

The world still hates genuine Christians as it always has and it also despises the sing-song hypocrites among us.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Rev. Anthony Evans noted that his group that represents almost six million Blacks is “simply standing on the Word of God within the mind of Christ. We urge our brother and sisters of the PCUSA to repent and be restored to fellowship.”

Pastor Evans added that the PCUSA’s decisions was a universal sin against the entire church and can no longer call itself a Christian entity in the body of Christ. He added, “No church has the right to change the Word of God. By voting to redefine marriage PCUSA automatically forfeits Christ’s saving grace. There is always redemption in the body of Christ through confession of faith and adhering to Holy Scripture.”

“In this case, PCUSA deliberately voted to change the Word of God and the interpretation of holy marriage between one man and one woman. This is why we must break fellowship with them and urge the entire Christendom to do so as well.”

Wow! A large group of black pastors representing 34,000 churches has taken a courageous stand that should be emulated by numerous other church leaders–most of them white.

It is noteworthy that the Black spokesman not only disagreed with the PCUSA but called upon them to “repent and be restored to fellowship.” It is one thing to disagree with and disengage from a group but to demand repentance is astounding. Isn’t that a little “uppity” of those black leaders? How dare they condemn, challenge, and chastise their “betters!”

Of course the Black preachers are correct to state that no church has the right to “change the Word of God.” However, that has been going on for decades with modern translations that display little loyalty to the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Word. Added to that, there are the changes in church creeds, seminary training, ordination qualifications, etc. All these corruptions are to satisfy the culture, after all culture is constantly changing; however, that is the point: mankind needs a standard that does not change. God does not change; neither does His Word!

Recently many high profile evangelical leaders have shifted with the culture on same sex “marriage” but the Bible has not shifted. These “leaders” are pathetic individuals who never knew or forgot that the church of the living God is not to move with the culture but to move the culture!

The culture shifts toward abortion so the churches do, after all a woman has a right to choose but of course the unborn child has no choice.

There is shift in the culture toward sexual immorality so the churches shift and even welcome fornicators and adulterers into membership without requiring repentance.

There is a shift in the culture on gambling so the churches move to the left and even take groups to Vegas and Atlantic City as church groups–even some independent Baptists!

There is a shift in the culture toward drinking so the churches shift even to the point of providing booze during church services!

The culture shifts toward immodesty in dress so now even professing Christians shift with the culture; after all, pastors argue that they would rather have them in church dressed like scantily clad “stars” at Hollywood premiers than not have them in church at all.

However, it is even more shocking because the black leaders also suggested that all other denominations follow their example! Of course, all the major denominations have been dancing around the homosexual issue for decades and many have not shown any commitment to the Word of God or to common decency.

Church leaders should have fled their denominations like their hair was on fire in obedience to II Cor. 6:17 that clearly commands us to “come out from among them” and be separate. A few churches in various denominations have done this but not in massive numbers. These black brothers are good examples for others to leave corrupt denominations.

We have seen an abundance of “tolerance” where anything is accepted if enough people demand it and if it is followed by a media blitz supporting that “tolerance.” Americans are willing to tolerate anything; after all, right is not always right and wrong is not always wrong. It depends on the circumstances or so they say. There is a plethora of talk about rights but very little talk about what is right. These black pastors are calling attention to right and their right to declare what is right according to the Bible. I am delighted to stand with them.

Let me be clear: the Bible can never mean what it was not written to mean and if the homosexual juggernaut continues then America will become Sodom with electric lights, television, cell phones, smog, and Interstates.

Maybe these Black clergymen will help stem the tide and delay God’s judgment.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

It is my desire to dispel the myths, delusions, superstitions and lies that are circulating about Patrick. Of course, he did not drive the snakes out of Ireland but his preaching of Christ drove out the pagan Druids and removed human sacrifice; also, his assistants in his “monastery” copied and preserved the Bible and standard texts for us to peruse today. All this while the Roman Empire was crumbling and the dark ages were falling upon Europe and the Roman Church gained more and more power and riches.

Patrick was reared in a Christian home and his father was a deacon in an evangelical (or Baptistic) church. Also, his grandfather pastored in these ancient churches of Britain which had never come under the Roman yoke. An historian wrote more than a hundred years ago, “…the truth which saved him when a youthful slave in pagan Ireland was taught him in the godly home of…his father.” Under that Christian influence Patrick felt called to go back to Ireland as a missionary to convert those pagan Druids who had enslaved him!

He became one of the most effective missionaries of all time, some think, only second to the Apostle Paul! He refused to take gifts from kings and preached to everyone about the grace of God. Patrick wrote that he “baptized thousands of people,” ordained men to the ministry, counseled and won wealthy women, and sons of kings and trained them for Christian service. He refused to be paid for baptizing people, ordaining preachers, and even paid for the gifts he gave to kings.

He was legally without protection since he refused the patronage of kings and was beaten, robbed, and put in chains. He says that he was also held captive for 60 days but gives no details.

It is only natural that the nascent but growing Roman Church would claim him but it was and is a bogus claim. One historian wrote, “Rome’s most audacious theft was when she seized bodily the Apostle Peter and made him the putative head and founder of her system; but next to that brazen act stands her effrontery when she ‘annexed’ the great missionary preacher of Ireland and enrolled him among her saints.” Well said.

Baptists should appreciate the fact that Catholics pay homage to him, even build churches in his honor; however, it is time to realize that Patrick was only a very simple, even untrained Baptist preacher. He was not interested in power or position or possessions but in preaching the simple Gospel of Christ. From my study of him, he would be embarrassed and chagrined that a day in his honor is often turned into a drunken orgy as in Rio and New Orleans.

The early non-Catholic Churches were not called “Baptist” but most preached, practiced, and professed what modern Baptists do.

If Patrick had been a Roman Catholic then somewhere there would be support for that, but there is none. Patrick wrote Confession, or Epistle to the Irish and Epistle to Coroticus and in neither did he refer to Rome. The Breastplate, a hymn is also attributed to him. Not one of his early biographers mentions any Roman connection. Moreover, there is no support for the claim that Pope Celistine sent him to the Irish people.

Furthermore, during his life, the Roman Church was only in embryo form. The Bishop of Rome was not considered the authoritarian he became much later. In fact, church authority was split in five directions: the Patriarchs at Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria all claimed to have as much authority as the Roman Bishop!

Professor George T. Stokes, a prominent scholar, declared that before the synod of Rathbresail in A.D. 1112, the rule of each Irish Church was independent, autonomous, and “…dioceses and diocesan episcopacy had no existence at all.”

Neander’s History of the Christian Church says that the facts “prove the origin of the [Irish] church was independent of Rome, and must be traced solely to the people of Britain… Again, no indication of his connection with the Romish church is to be found in his confession; rather everything seems to favor the supposition that he was ordained bishop in Britain itself.”

Odriscol, who, incidentally, was an Irish Catholic, in his work entitled, Views of Ireland, reveals: “The Christian church of that country, as founded by St. Patrick and his predecessors, existed for many ages, free and unshackelled. For 700 years this church maintained its independence. It had no connection with England and differed on points of importance with Rome.” That’s from an Irish Catholic!

Another Irish scholar wrote that “…Leo II was bishop of Rome from 440 to 461 A.D. and upwards of one hundred and forty of his letters to correspondents in all parts of Christendom still remain and yet he never mentions Patrick or his work, or in any way intimates that he knew of the great work being done there.” So, until after 461, the Roman Church had not tried to make Patrick as one of their major “saints.”

Furthermore, the Venerable Bede (Father of English History) did not refer to Patrick in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People. That fact is shattering to Patrick’s Roman connection.

Moreover, there are many other proofs that Patrick was a Baptist, not a Catholic:

He only baptized born again believers–never infants. He wrote about a convert named Enda who was saved the night after his son Cormac was born. He baptized Enda but not his infant son. And in all his letters and his books Patrick never mentions baptizing infants. He wrote of “baptized captives,” “baptized handmaidens of Christ,” baptized believers,” and he wrote, “Perhaps, since I have baptized so many thousand men,…” But never infants.

An additional proof of Patrick being a Baptist was he only baptized by immersion. Various church historians record an incident when 12,000 people were converted and baptized. “Profiting by the presence of so vast a multitude, the apostle [Patrick] entered into the midst of them, his soul inflamed with the love of God, and with a celestial courage preached the truths of Christianity; and so powerful was the effect of his burning words that the seven princes and over twelve thousand more were converted on that day, and were soon baptized in a spring called Tobar Enadhaire.”

Thomas Moore, in his history of Ireland says: “The convert saw in the baptismal fount where he was immersed the sacred well at which his fathers worshipped.”

Archbishop Usher admits: “Patrick baptized his converts in Dublin, including Alpine, the king’s son, in a well near Saint Patrick Church, which in after ages became an object of devotion.”

Famous church historian William Cathcart stated, “There is absolutely no evidence that any baptism but that of immersion of adult believers existed among the ancient Britons, in the first half of the fifth century, nor for a long time afterwards.” He also wrote, “There are strong reasons for believing Patrick was a Baptist missionary and it is certain that his Baptism was immersion.” No, Patrick was a Baptist preacher, not a Roman Catholic priest.

Patrick knew nothing of confession or forgiveness by a priest; he forbade worship of images; he never told his converts to pray to Mary or any other “saint”; he never mentions purgatory, holy days, rosary, or last rites. Moreover, Patrick never mentions any pope or cardinal or gives credibility to any creed, catechism or confessional. Nor to Eucharist, relics, or dogma of the Roman Church.

Patrick was not Irish nor was he a Catholic. He preached, practiced, professed, and promoted Baptist distinctives and to declare otherwise is simply Irish blarney.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Genuine Fundamentalists are clean, caring, and committed Christians living according to the New Testament, worshiping in simple, relatively inexpensive buildings (or homes), and a few megachurches. Like early Christians, Bible-believers today generally eschew liturgy, human doctrines, vestments, and repetitive and meaningless gestures. They seek to reach others; but, at the same time, cautioning, contending, and confronting laymen and leaders who are too much involved in this world’s affairs. They are what the early Christians were and are willing to experience poverty, prison and persecution for the truth. Most of today’s Christianettes seek prosperity, preference, and popularity.

Even infidel theologians such as the late Kirsopp Lake, Professor Ecclesiastical History at Harvard Divinity School and author of the five-volume The Beginnings of Christianity, affirmed that Fundamentalism is original Christianity! He made an incredible statement that should shake mainline churches to their foundations: “It is a mistake, often made by educated persons who happen to have but little knowledge of historical theology, to suppose that Fundamentalism is a new and strange form of thought. It is nothing of the kind: it is the…survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians.” Lake added, “The Fundamentalist may be wrong; I think that he is. But it is we who have departed from the tradition, not he, and I am sorry for the fate of anyone who tries to argue with a Fundamentalist on the basis of authority.” He added that the Bible is on the Fundamentalist side. Remember, he was an expert on the New Testament and ecclesiastical history! Moreover, he agrees with me!

So today’s New Testament churches (that includes some Evangelicals) are original Christianity and should be making an impact on our culture as the early churches did, but the fact is our success is limited because the culture is driving us! Our churches are not the master or the servant of the state but are to be the conscience of the state and society. We must be the state’s critic but not its tool.

Most American and Canadian pastors are silent and most churches could close their doors without anyone noticing since they have become little, irrelevant, homogeneous groups that have monthly pitch-in dinners and weekly hot chocolate huddles in church basements. Maybe a revival meeting each year. Few preachers actually confront society with the Gospel and with Bible truths. That means America’s mess can be attributed directly to our pulpits!

Fact: if a preacher is not contending, he is not a true preacher of God. The truth is that every Fundamentalist is a fighting Fundamentalist. Not fighting everyone, not fighting all the time, and never being mean, but fighting by counseling, cautioning, confronting, and combating political, religious, social, and business leaders while also presenting the claims of Christ to them. We must be scriptural, sincere, strong, and never silent.

Many preachers are telling us that modern Christians are not to contend for the faith as the old timers did; after all, it isn’t cool and drives people away from the church. But then, people should be driven away from many churches! Such critics think they are obeying the Bible but they are not. Compromisers were wrong yesterday, are wrong today, and will be wrong tomorrow and will finally be convinced of it in eternity. These New Evangelicals and Very Mushy Fundamentalists (VMF) have digressed and departed and deserted Bible Christianity. True Fundamentalists (or if you prefer, New Testament Christians) stand where genuine Christians have always stood: upon the inspired, infallible, indispensable Word of God. The corollary is to obey New Testament instructions which involves contending, rebuking, and coming out from among them. But doing so according to Eph. 4:15: “Speaking the truth in love.”

The woods are full of Evangelicals or conservatives, even Fundamentalists, who desire peace above purity and unity over truth. They are willing to tolerate apostasy, not confronting others for their heresy, and are therefore not original Christians! The Bible commands us to “shun” some (II Tim. 2:16); and to “turn away” from others (II Tim. 3:5); then “mark them . . .[in order to] avoid” those who are not doctrinally correct (Rom. 16:17); furthermore, those who do not hold to the doctrine of Christ are not to be received “into your house neither bid them God speed” (II John 10). We are even told to not be involved with and to separate from Christians who walk in disobedience. (II Thess. 3:6.) Finally, we are to “come out from among” compromisers and evil doers (II Cor. 6:17); but that requires all who are members of an unbiblical church or denomination to leave. That means leaving family and friends and joining a fellowship that teaches truth.

The departure from Bible Christianity started at the very beginning of the church age and accelerated into the Middle Ages; however, it exploded during the 1900s until today. The major catalyst for this was the National Association of Evangelicals who were embarrassed to be associated with Fundamentalists. The loosey-goosey NAE wanted to present a soft, sophisticated, and scholarly persona to the world and they had eight complaints against Fundamentalists which were listed in Christian Life Magazine, March, 1956. There was a tinge of truth to some of their complaints but only a tinge. For example, no one could be against true scholarship; however, radical scholarship is really radical unbelief in amateurish disguise.

Get your barf bag ready. Each one is as dangerous as a landmine in a schoolyard: 1) a friendly attitude toward science; 2) a willingness to re-examine beliefs concerning the work of the Holy Spirit; 3) a more tolerant attitude toward varying views on eschatology; 4) a shift away from so-called extreme dispensationalism; 5) an increased emphasis on scholarship; 6) a more definite recognition of social responsibility; 7) a re-opening of the subject of biblical inspiration; and 8) a growing willingness of evangelical theologians to converse with liberal theologians. Ahh yes, converse but never confront.

Each of the eight screams compromise, collusion, corruption, and capitulation. The Evangelicals pulled away from the Fundamentalists which would not have a tragedy but they got a makeover strangely resembling the unbelieving modernists! The Evangelicals’ indulgent, irrelevant, implausible, and inaccurate preaching further added to their error.

Like insecure teens looking for approval, the renovated Christian leaders abandoned the high ground of the Bible for the slime pits of a mushy Evangelicalism. Mushy Fundamentalists march more slowly than the Evangelicals but they march in the same direction and eventually arrive at the same destination: compromise, collusion, corruption, and capitulation.

Too much preaching nowadays pats the back and tickles the ear, but does not get under the skin. There is no conviction and therefore no conversion. I am thinking not only of the ministry of reproof and rebuke but also of the message of inspiration, of encouragement, and of comfort. People leave church at noon with their depths unstirred, their hearts untouched, and their consciences unpricked. They leave church licking on a stone rather than chewing on bread.

Church goers need to hear from Heaven; instead they often hear from a denominational bureaucrat or warmed-over sermons from Rick Warren or Bill Hybels.

The further churches drift away from biblical truth, the more the hatred is dumped upon those who expose the drift away from original Christianity.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

As to the feminine pictures, they are obviously extremely unlike the real Christ. He grew up in a carpenter’s home, so we know He must have felled trees and dragged them to his stepfather’s shop. He sawed logs and planed lumber. He was muscular and manly as well as magnificent.

And of course, no rational person believes the tales of those who “died” and talked to Christ and returned to earth to boast about it. Any contact with the living Savior would render anyone prostrate at His feet in shame or in awe, humility, silence, and reverence.

If He were looking for a church to attend, it would be one that closely resembled the church He established that we discern in the book of Acts. It would be a church that cared for people, taught the Scriptures, lived godly but flawed lives, and sought to carry out His last command about going into all the world and preaching the Gospel, baptizing, and making disciples.

So, we eliminate most churches rather quickly. If a church does not teach the Bible, does not baptize new converts who professed faith in Him, and is not interested in spreading His message, those churches would not be considered as possibilities.

Does anyone think Christ would feel at home in a massive church that has millions of dollars’ worth of art, statuary, furniture, jewelry, etc.? I’m afraid He would be stunned and shocked at the mumbo jumbo, the repetition, the strange doctrines, the blasphemous liturgy, and the endless and meaningless routine. He would see priests, prelates, and popes garbed in finery and living in unrestricted opulence enough to make an oriental potentate blush at the ostentation. He would react the same way to many television evangelists who are as worldly, wicked, and wealthy as many liturgical church leaders. Such leaders don’t require one to kiss their ring; only open their wallet.

If Christ visited some mainline churches, His name would seldom be mentioned and even then without New Testament connotation. He would hear well-educated clergy deliver very dull, dishonest, dissonant discourses that would never reach the heart, prick the conscience, or teach the Gospel. Being omniscient, He would know that those preachers, shortly after seminary, took ordination vows to be true to the Scripture while knowing they did not believe the Scripture. Liberal, unbelieving preachers and theologians are hypocritical apostates. If they had any character they would resign and find a real job where they could be honest.

He might even visit some of the cults where unbelievable, uncommon, and unscriptural doctrines are taught, doctrines that did not come from the Bible but from the confused, angry, hateful, mind of psychopaths.

When entering a loosey-goosey, touchy-feely “no brand” church (a “church” but one trying to hide what it is supposed to be) His appearance would embarrass many of the congregants. These modern “Christians” think their feelings and their experiences are more vital than truth. Their ministers major in patting the back and tickling the ear, but never getting under the skin. No one is ever confronted or convicted and only occasionally challenged. I am thinking not only of the ministry of reproof and rebuke but also of the message of inspiration, of encouragement, of comfort. People leave church at noon with their souls unstirred, their hearts untouched, their consciences unpricked. They leave church licking a stone rather than chewing bread. Therefore, most are also unconverted. No, He would not quickly find a church that He established.

He would eventually visit a church that is known for being true to the Bible, known for its simplicity, known for concern and love for others, known for its excitement, known for its beautiful, scripturally-based music, known for sermons that explain the Scripture without twisting passages to conform to a trendy society. That church may be a storefront in an inner city; a simple, clean, functional church in an affluent suburb; or a church that meets in a home with only a few families. And on rare occasions it might be a megachurch.

Would Christ be welcome in your church? Would He find it true to the church He established? Or, would He say “I have somewhat against thee….repent, and do the first works…so then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”

Christ told the local church at Laodicea, “You make me sick.” I’m afraid He would say the same thing to most churches in our day.
http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

First of all, there is no way to support the silly possibility that the bones are the remains of Peter. That is simply wishful thinking by the Catholic hierarchy as they add to their dubious list of relics. The Church has thousands of bogus relics that help prop up its weak, wavering, wondering, wandering, and wobbly adherents.

The chest in which the bones were cased is more interesting than the bone fragments. The bones rested on an ivory bed in a bronze chest. The chest was decorated with a carving of Peter “who was a fisherman before becoming the Church’s first pope, casting his nets into the sea.” But then no one on earth knows what Peter looked like and, for sure, he was not the first pope, or second pope. He may have been executed in Rome but there is no proof for that. The church in Rome existed before Peter or Paul got there so neither was the church founder. The Catholic Church is built upon a shaky, sandy, spurious foundation and is held together by wishful thinking.

The affable Pope has recently confused many people with some public statements dealing with homosexuality and atheists going to Heaven. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church has insisted very strongly for hundreds of years that only Catholics were going to Heaven! So Francis is rocking the church-boat. It may be that the Pope does not know what he believes. Anyway, his handlers must be in panic about what he may say next.

Honest historians, even Catholic historians, admit that Peter was not the first pope. Eusebius was Bishop of Caesarea about 314 A.D. and suggests in his classic and ground-breaking Church History that Paul and Peter were founders of the church in Rome. However, a footnote corrects the record: “Neither Paul nor Peter founded the Roman Church in the strict sense for there was a congregation of believers there even before Paul came to Rome, as his Epistle to the Romans shows, and Peter cannot have reached there until some time after Paul. It was, however, a very early fiction that Paul and Peter together founded the church in that city.” The possibility of Peter founding the church in Rome and serving as its pastor is a fiction, fib, fable, falsehood, and fraud.

Rome would rather discuss whether Peter was a founder (with Paul) of the church in Rome instead of supporting their assertion that he was the first pope exercising central control of all churches. No one was the pope for hundreds of years although each succeeding Bishop of Rome gradually grabbed power for his office. During those hundreds of years all priests in small villages were called, “papa” or pope.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Peter’s successors to the papacy were Linus (A.D. 67 to 79), Cletus (A.D. 79 to 91) and Clement I (from A.D. 91 to 100), all three of whom were bishop of Rome during the time that the Apostle John was still alive. In other words, each of the three pastors at Rome would have had a higher pecking order than the Apostle John who was still alive! Does anyone, not blinded by fanatical religion, believe that is possible?

When the Apostle Paul wrote his church epistles giving the offices and duties and qualifications for various church offices, he never mentions a pope! Not one New Testament author refers to the Pope or one-man rule or papal succession. Paul greeted 26 people in his epistle to the Romans without mentioning the alleged top honcho, Peter! Paul wrote four letters from his Roman prison without mentioning that Peter came by to visit him. In fact, Paul said that he was “alone.” If Peter was in Rome, he had cowardly abandoned his friend and Apostle who was Nero’s prisoner! I believe Christ said something about visiting those in prison.

It seems that the first definite report that Peter and Paul founded the Roman Church was made by Dionysius of Corinth about 170 A.D. Historians Shotwell and Loomis declared, “That is a long way from contemporary evidence. We have no lists of the early bishops of Rome until about the same period, and those we have do not quite agree.”

Gibbon clearly disposed of the Roman Catholic’s position as to the founders of the Roman Church: “It is quite clear that, strictly speaking, the Church of Rome was not founded by either of these apostles. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans proves undeniably the flourishing state of the Church before his visit to the city; and many Roman Catholic writers have given up the impracticable task of reconciling with chronology any visit of St. Peter to Rome before the end of the reign of Claudius or the beginning of that of Nero.” Peter was definitely in Israel during the time Catholics teach that he was in Rome. Even Peter couldn’t be in two places at the same time no matter how much “holy” water he had.

Knowing of the prestige of Peter, some people in Rome began giving him credit for being the first bishop at Rome and others picked up on that and continued to circulate that fabrication until the fable became a fact. Since then, Roman Catholics have taught the fiction rather than the fact since it plays better in Peoria and Pisa.

No bones about it: Peter’s bones have not been found and he was not the first pope. My critics will no doubt smell anti-Catholic bigotry as they read this, but facts are the facts: the Pope is wrong. Peter was not the first Pope and it was the Roman Catholic Church that broke away from the Church that Christ built.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Eight minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota.

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

The younger Nyquist whines, “the church has deeply hurt us.” No, the church did not hurt him, it was people. Moreover, maybe Carson is a little too sensitive. Maybe he is relishing in his victimhood caused by the older generation. He is sure proud of being a “Millennial” and opines that “few generations before us are so quick to acknowledge failure.” Well, yes, but their failures are so obvious. The previous generation, as all generations, generated massive failures but then, we are all broken, sinful people. The “Millennials” are the same, only younger and more whiney.

Carson declares, as if anyone questions it, “Perfection is a standard no one can meet.” Did it take a few years at Moody and Dallas to comprehend that truth?

Carson assures us, “We value the environment and are the most socially conscious generation in recent history.” That trivial statement would make Congregational pastor, Washington Gladden, (stimulus for the social gospel in the late 1800s) stand up and cheer. Wow, surely Carson could, if he would, be a little more biblical than boast about tree-hugging.

Carson said, “Christian morals are not held as they once were…. In fact, I would argue, as many others do, that this [new morals] is exactly what the church needs.” He is getting ready to hit his stride with his main issue as he discusses morals: homosexuality. “The Christian reputation, established primarily by the previous generation, has been known to show judgment and doctrinal separation. Few would describe this conversation as loving.” But is it biblical? The Millennial and Emergent Church pitch is “don’t be judgmental” even if the Bible demands it. That doesn’t go well with his generation. Adjust, be flexible. “Don’t be so hardnosed” is their mantra.

Another string they constantly strum is their reproof, revulsion, and rejection of doctrine and doctrinal separation. All the loosey-goosey Evangelical groups detest the message of Paul: “Come out from among them.” The Millennials want to stay in and well, not fight but fellowship and fraternize with the ungodly. Might win one now and then. To what?

He adds that the church, because of its harshness and labeling homosexuality as “sin,” has alienated the homosexual community. “I want nothing to do with that reputation.” He writes about the church’s negative reputation in the “gay” community. He approvingly quoted a pro-homosexual blogger who was present at a “gay” pride rally: “I hugged a man in his underwear. I think Jesus would have too.” No, Jesus would have told him to get saved and put on some clothes. The man would have clothed himself as did the demoniac of Gadara. When people get right, they get dressed. The further away from God, the less clothing.

The blogger went on: “I spent the day at Chicago’s Pride Parade.” He and some friends wore shirts stating “I’m sorry that Christians judge you.” “I’m sorry the way churches have treated you.” “I used to be a bible-banging homophobe, sorry.” Well, since all Christians are to follow Bible commands, I wonder how such compromise can be defended in light of Gen. 19 when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain. Has God changed or has Moody changed?

Carson goes on: “Pietistic compulsion to share our convictions does not lead to relationship or reconciliation.” How about repentance? Repentance must precede relationship and reconciliation.

He then deals with the woman in Luke 7 who kissed Christ’s feet and wept. Carson is trying to make a comparison of homosexuals visiting a church and being rejected. Of course, Christ accepted her but Carson doesn’t seem to understand that she had repented and had been forgiven. He added, “What would others think if their community group welcomed a lesbian? Image management rises to the surface and trumps all.” No, truth trumps all and any lesbian would be accepted after repentance.

Some think this was Mary Magdalene but with no biblical reason. The woman in the passage was probably a heathen, a Gentile and maybe a prostitute. She kissed Christ’s feet which was not a Jewish custom. Polybius reported on ambassadors from Carthage who supplicated the Romans for peace in the early 200s B.C. With a humble and abject mind, they fell down and “kissed the feet of the council.” Kissing the feet was a heathen practice and was not part of a Jew’s practice.

Carson does not want to be connected to a faith that takes an anti-homosexual stand. Of course, many Millennials don’t want to stand for anything. He doesn’t want to be identified with that faith. I don’t think he has much to worry about.

Paul added, “We don’t want a watered-down version of God’s word,” however, that is exactly what the Nyquists have and evidently Moody Bible Institute, Moody Press, and Moody Radio have the same. The father declared on the radio program, “We both hold strongly to the biblical standards on homosexuality and any form of sexual perversion.” What a statement! Both men know what the Bible teaches about fornication, bestiality, homosexuality, necrophilia, so how could an honest person make such a statement? They are public apologists for abnormality.

Closing the program, Carson spoke of his tattoo (on his side) saying it was a spiritual experience! He defended tattoos by saying that most of his friends had tattoos and “It’s like wearing a tie.” No, it is not. According to one writer in the Pacific News Service, tattoos are a “new reverence for pagan beliefs.” Lev. 19:28 clearly commands “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.” Carson’s dad, president of Moody Bible Institute said of his son’s body marking, “I am fine with that.”

The book is recommended by Glenn R. Kreider, professor at Dallas Seminary. It is not recommended by me! And neither is Moody Bible Institute, Publishing, or Radio recommended by me. And in quiet moments I wonder how any Dallas professor can recommend such a book.

Millennials want to break with their rigid past and have a warm, fuzzy, Christianity. They don’t like to be pressured into a pure, biblical life. They prefer to be uncommitted, unconnected, and unaccountable.

Their book deserves to be unread.

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.