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.)

Graham swapped his commitment to truth for the bowl of porridge known as compromise that gave him an international bully pulpit. I think he failed and preached pabulum most of his illustrious life as the following facts clearly document.

I know many pastors and laymen who trusted Christ under Graham’s ministry; but that is not the criterion. Was he faithful in the work of the ministry? The answer is “no.” Graham showed some courage, especially in his younger days, when he removed the ropes that were to separate Blacks from Whites at his Chattanooga Crusade in 1953. But he believed that courage, convictions, and commitment to the Word were not as important as reaching the masses. He thought he had to give a little to get a lot. Surrendering Bible doctrine brought him much more than he expected.

He told the Lutheran Standard in a 1961 interview that water baptism can save a person! Dr. Graham said of infant baptism: “I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant …. I believe that a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christian through infant baptism.” That statement is not surprising since his own wife and three of his children were sprinkled, not baptized. However, surrendering on the subject of baptism brought him many new friends and supporters.

In an interview with McCall’s magazine, January 1978, entitled “I Can’t Play God Any More,” Graham said, “I used to believe that pagans in far-off countries were lost—were going to hell—if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that. … I believe that there are other ways of recognizing the existence of God—through nature, for instance—and plenty of other opportunities, therefore, of saying ‘yes’ to God.” Graham’s defenders cannot plead his age or Parkinson’s disease. His statement is perversion of the Gospel and cannot be excused, defended, or ameliorated. His defenders need to ask themselves how they can still support him with that statement hanging around his neck. And would they support their local pastor if he said the same thing? I will ask all my critics to these columns those questions.

Christianity Today magazine came to Graham’s defense saying that he was misquoted; however later interviews substantiated the early remark and his staff was kept busy doing damage control and readjusting his halo so his followers would not be disenchanted, discouraged, and dissuaded from supporting his work.
I heard Graham say the following, “He’s calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ, because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven.” (May 31, 1997 interview with Graham by Robert Schuller with emphasis added.)

But it gets worser and worser! Graham continued, “I’ve met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they’ve believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they’ve tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.” He could not have made it any clearer: He believed in universalism and spouted it on television for the world to hear!

That statement is classic universalism that has been condemned by orthodox Christians for over 2,000 years. So, why does almost everyone dismiss Graham’s belief of it with the wave of the hand? That question must be answered by Graham’s supporters.

Graham’s major error was in changing his mind about whom he would work with in his city-wide crusades. He said, “I have promised God I will never have on my committee working in an active way in any of my campaigns men who do not believe in the virgin birth of Christ, who do not believe in the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, who do not believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible–these men will never be on my committee. I have promised God.” But he reneged.

I could take pages and prove that he had the most radical unbelievers on his committees as well as many Roman Catholic priests, sending convert cards to all of his supporting churches. Graham was sending new professing Christians to the wolves contrary to his earlier commitment. On Nov. 11, 1957, Graham told the San Francisco News, “Anyone who makes a decision at our meeting is seen later and referred to a local clergyman–Protestant, Catholic or Jewish.” Gasp!

Graham is known as “Mr. Facing Two Ways” reminiscent of John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. One day he had glowing praise for Bob Jones University, John Rice of the Sword of the Lord, etc., and the next he was climbing into bed with the most radical modernists in America. This supports the fact that compromise will usually take one farther than he wanted to go.

We are commanded to “earnestly contend for the faith” which I have tried to do. I have just climbed out on a limb and handed my critics a saw. They can do their worst.

Boys’ new ebook The Rise and Decline of Billy Graham: He Tried to do Right the Wrong Way! is available here.

Since this is the 500th year of the anniversary of the Reformation, many have asked why so many groups split from the church that Christ established while others want to know what was the first authentic church. It is assumed by the uneducated that the Roman Catholic Church was the “mother church” but that is not an historical fact. Well, if not the Catholics, then who?

The first church was in Jerusalem and it was a Baptist or baptistic church! If not, what were they? My critics can tell me what the Jerusalem church believed and practiced and I will adjust to their beliefs and practices.

J. Porter wrote in 1914, “The first Baptist preacher was John the Baptist. We learn from the Scriptures that he was a Baptist and a preacher, and certainly it is impossible for a man to be a Baptist and a preacher and not be a Baptist preacher.” Can anyone argue with that statement? Since Christ was baptized by John the Baptist, did that make Christ a Baptist? Just asking.

The Encyclopedia Britannica revealed, “Baptists can be traced to 618 A.D. and it is presumed that they originated from the original source of the churches.”

In 1819, the King of Holland appointed Dr. J. Dermout and Dr. Ypeij to prepare a history of the Dutch Reformed Church and also to report on the claims of the Dutch Baptists. Following their research, they wrote: “We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times, Mennonites, were the original Waldenses…On this account, the Baptists may be considered as the only religious community which has stood since the days of the apostles, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the gospel through all ages.”

The above account can be found on page 148, Volume I., of the work entitled History of the Dutch Reformed Church, by A. Ypeij, Doctor and Professor of Theology at Groningen, and I. J. Dermout, Secretary of the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church, and Preacher at The Hague, at Breda, 1819. Of course, they were not Baptists.

The best evidence for your position is when evidence comes from your enemy or opponent, and the Campbellites or Church of Christ people have been longtime opponents of Baptists. The following words of Alexander Campbell, founder of the Church of Christ movement, are taken from the authorized edition of the Campbell-McCalla Debate, “Clouds of witnesses attest the fact that before the reformation from Popery, and from the apostolic age, to the present time, the sentiments of Baptists and the practice of baptism have had a continued chain of advocates, and public monuments of their existence in every century can be produced” (Alexander Campbell, in debate with W. L. McCalla, held at Washington, Mason Co., Ky., Oct. 15, 1823, p. 378).

Baptists have been fervently opposed to government control or involvement in their church affairs even when it would have benefited them! In colonial Virginia, everyone was taxed to support the established religion of the Episcopal Church (Church of England); however, Baptists refused to support that error by not paying the tax.

Those Baptists were hassled, harassed, and hunted; then fined, whipped, and even imprisoned; but they prevailed. They would not pay taxes to support the local vicar of the Church of England. In fact, they were told that they could receive tax dollars to support their Baptist Churches, but the principled Baptists refused the free money! That resulted with the Anglican Church being disestablished in Virginia. Now, no tax dollars would support any church.

In our day, almost all groups are taking “free” money, even Baptists! Day cares, Christian schools, homeless shelters, etc., are being financed with tax dollars. And even Baptists have learned to live with the attached strings–later to be called, chains. The strings always begin very tenuously; but it must be remembered that what the government funds, it runs. Maybe not at first, but eventually with the government’s nickel comes a noose.

Baptist History is not without its blemishes and stains. Because of its independence, some peculiar people with peculiar teachings attached themselves to Baptist Churches and baptistic groups going back before Baptist was attached to a church name. The lack of a hierarchal organization without a “pope” required every single Baptist Church to police its own affairs. That system has worked rather well; after all, it is the biblical system.

Baptists have been the loudest voices for religious freedom and separation of church and state (although not separation of God and state) from the very beginning of this nation. Honest, informed historians credit Baptists for that reality.

L. W. Bacon, in A History of American Christianity, wrote of the Baptists: “….that we are chiefly indebted for the final triumph, in this country, of that principle of the separation of church and state, which is one of the largest contributions of the New World to civilization….” High praise indeed and well deserved from a Congregationalist and later Presbyterian!

Baptists are also responsible for the ten amendments to the constitution not only the first one! Cathcart tells us in his Centennial Offering that “Denominationally, no community asked for this change in the Constitution but the Baptists….The Baptists asked for it through Washington; the request commended itself to his judgment and to the generous soul of Madison; and to the Baptists, beyond a doubt, belongs the glory of engrafting its best articles on the noblest Constitution ever framed for the government of mankind.”

The separation of church and state was enshrined in the Bill or Rights in the U.S. Constitution because of a Baptist preacher named John Leland. The Bill of Rights is comparable to England’s Magna Carta signed in 1215.

The Constitution was approved in 1787 at the Philadelphia Convention and was sent to the states for ratification. Virginia was by far the largest and most politically powerful colony so there would be no Constitution without Virginia. Each Virginia County elected two members to the state ratifying convention. James Madison and James Gordon, Jr. were candidates from Orange County (and there were two other candidates opposed to the Constitution) and Madison thought he was a sure winner. He was warned by his father and others that the Baptists had turned the citizens against the Constitution because it did not have a Bill of Rights. Madison headed home from New York through Philadelphia and stopped to spend a few hours with the Baptist preacher John Leland who was the major Baptist in Virginia and Orange County, home also of Madison.

The Penn State Law Review declared that religious liberty concerns of Virginia Baptists particularly the concerns of John Leland “…played a substantial role in James Madison’s elections to the Virginia ratifying convention in March of 1788 and to the First Congress in February of 1789. Those elections, in turn, were key events in the ratification of the Constitution and in the adoption of the Bill of Rights.”

Leland was a friend of James Madison, James Monroe, and Thomas Jefferson, and because of that relationship, he was asked to preach to Congress with President Jefferson in attendance in the House of Representatives. Pastor Leland met with Madison, a candidate to Virginia’s ratifying convention, to convince him of the need for a Bill of Rights to be added to the newly approved Constitution of the United States. Madison was lukewarm to the subject.

The preacher and politician, both Virginians, later met near Orange, Virginia, in what is known today as Leland–Madison Memorial Park. During that four-hour meeting, Leland was successful in extracting a commitment from Madison for a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. During that meeting, it was understood that Leland would oppose Madison’s election if he did not commit to a Bill of Rights. Madison knew the Baptist pastor was very popular in his district and agreed to his request. (He also knew his party had been trounced in the previous election in Orange County.) Leland supported him strongly and the two pro-Constitution candidates won: Madison had 202; his fellow candidate 187 and the two opposing candidates 56 and 34!

Madison kept his word when he went to Congress in the first congressional election in 1788; and America became the most unusual nation in the world: the first nation having a written Constitution that guaranteed freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, etc.

America has a Bill of Rights because of a persistent pastor and a principled politician! This nation is short on both today.

Madison submitted twelve Constitutional amendments to the Congress about a month after Washington promised his help to the Baptists. Two amendments were rejected, but the ten original amendments were approved on September 23, 1789 after much opposition and were then submitted to the states for ratification.

The eleventh state had approved them by December 15, 1791 and America became the most unique nation on the face of the earth! We became a nation that guaranteed the people their God-given rights and limited the power of government, and we did it with a written Constitution and Bill of Rights–thanks to a Baptist preacher.

Historian of the Episcopal Church Dr. Hawks wrote in the Ecclesiastical Contributions: “The Baptists were the principal promoters of this work, and in truth aided more than any other denomination in its accomplishment.” Again, praise from a non-Baptist!

When Methodists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, etc., pass a Baptist church, they should doff their hats in respect and whisper a word of thanks for the freedom everyone is guaranteed because of our Baptist forefathers. Even non-Baptists agree that the Bill of Rights was a fantastic achievement in the annals of government.

The smallest Baptist church in America can swell with justified pride and appreciation of Baptist forefathers who believed in personal liberty for everyone–even the right to be wrong!

Now you know why Baptists are not Protestants and why I’m a Baptist.

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

Many parts of the world were obsessed with the two deaths and as the 20th anniversary approaches, Europe is sweep up in a bizarre mania. “Diana-mania” is spreading from Britain (and advancing in America) to all of Europe as the death anniversary looms. I have written about both women in columns and in my yet to be published memoirs: Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Regrets! The information below comes from those sources.

Within days of Diana’s death, I had one of my best opportunities to present the Gospel while appearing on a British talk show dealing with Princess Diana and Teresa. Immediately following Diana’s death August 31, 1997, a Pentecostal church in London went public with her final destination and it wasn’t Heaven! The show’s producer asked me to discuss her death and asked if Diana went to Hell because she had been visiting nightclubs and bars the night of her death. When I was asked that question during the show, I hesitated a little since this was an extremely hot topic and so close to her death. I said, “Well, no one can be sure what happens in the final seconds of a person’s life. Who knows what sermons a person has heard or what a parent or preacher has taught them that might flash through the dying person’s mind at the last minute. So I can’t know for sure.” My answer was a little soft, and sure, but safe.

After softening up the audience all over Great Britain and the host who was also a columnist for the Daily Telegraph, I steadied myself and said, “Deathbed conversions are highly unlikely since there is only one such experience in the Bible and Christ is the One who won the dying thief hanging beside him, promising him that he would be with Him that day in Paradise.” I ended by saying, “I would not give much chance of Diana’s last minute conversion to Christ. Princess Diana is probably in Hell tonight.” There was a loud gasp from the audience.

I thought my appearance was over but the host said, “Well, what about Mother Teresa?” who had died six days after Diana’s death. I cringed. We had not discussed Teresa’s death in pre-show preparation. Teresa was a Catholic icon who spent her life in the ghettos of India. She was known as the “Saint of the Gutters” and it is one thing to suggest that an adulterous, boozing, former princess was in Hell but something else to suggest that one of the most kind, sacrificing, inauspicious do-gooders of history might not be in Heaven! Of course, no one can be sure about anyone except himself.

The talk show host continued, “Does that mean Mother Teresa is not in Heaven?” I gulped, thought for a second, and said, “Well, I can’t know any person’s heart but if Teresa trusted the Roman Catholic Church, or baptism, or her good and admirable works to get her to Heaven, she is not there.” The show’s host gasped! I felt like a skunk at a ladies’ tea party.

I told the host, “Good people don’t necessarily go to Heaven and bad people don’t necessarily go to Hell.” She was astounded and said, “Would you please explain that?” I was thrilled to do so. I made it very clear that people go to Heaven after placing personal faith in the shed blood of Christ.

I was on a roll so I continued, “In fact, there are people in Hell tonight who, while on this earth, lived a better life than some people in Heaven.” She was shocked again and said, “Will you please explain that?” I was thrilled to do so. I explained that some people are genuine Christians but are very nominal in their daily living while there were non-Christians who are more noble, kind, decent, and benevolent but have never experienced the New Birth by trusting Christ as Savior.

What a show! I reached more people in that one hour than D. L. Moody did in his London crusade–but without his results! In addition to making the plan of salvation very clear, even stark, I tried to emphasize that real salvation results in the change of the morals, mores, manners, and motives of the convert.

There is no doubt that evangelical and fundamental Christians can learn something from Teresa who ministered to the unwanted, unloved, and uncared for and Diana who appeared to be a loving mother. No one should be more concerned for the poor, disadvantaged, hurting, sick, hungry people of the world than Christians. I think we could be more involved than we are; although many of us give to world missions, feed the hungry, provide clean water, medical missions, go to mission fields, etc., but we could probably do much more without sacrificing the essential message that only Christ saves.

Moreover, the Social Gospelers have confused personal responsibility with the churches’ responsibility. A church must never get her eyes off the main goal of taking the Gospel to the world and then training for Christian service those who believe it, while having outreaches for the poor. However, as individuals we should also support outreaches to the poor and needy but we must use discretion since many secular organizations are not worthy of support. My wife and I have supported those individuals we know who deserve support, help for flood victims, earthquake relief, providing portable generators for native churches in Central America, and efforts to bring clean water to desperate African villages. Such activities are not the major job of churches.

Teresa did not appear sophisticated; however, she or her handlers were very astute in using the media for her own end—raising money for her cause. She had connections with rich, famous people who funded her charity according to Christopher Hitchens in The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. Some of those “sugar daddies” were disreputable, unscrupulous people such as former Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier (who plundered Haiti), Charles Keating, and other scoundrels such as Communist Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha who ruled for 40 years. Hoxha was married and although homosexuality was illegal in Albania, he is commonly believed to have had perverted relations most of his adult life. It is said that he used to take handsome Albanian soldiers to bed with him and then have them shot the next morning.

One egregious example is Teresa’s relationship with Charles Keating of the Lincoln S&L shame. Keating gave more than a million dollars to Teresa and flew her around in his jet. During his trial for fraud for bilking 23,000 investors out of their money, she wrote Judge Ito telling him what a good guy Keating was and asked for leniency in sentencing. Teresa advised the judge to “do what Jesus would do.” I’m not sure what Jesus would have done, but the judge gave Keating ten years for fraud. Keating served four-and-a half years in prison.

Following the trial, Teresa received a letter from the Deputy District Attorney telling her that the money Keating had given her was stolen from hard working people and suggested that she return the money. I would have suggested, “After all, that is what Jesus would have done.” The good nun never answered his letter nor returned the stolen money. After all, it was for the “poor.”

Teresa was also involved with Princess Diana who sought consolation when she was divorced. Teresa said that the divorce was unfortunate but was probably a good thing! However, Teresa took the opposite position when Ireland was debating what to do about their prohibition of divorce and remarriage. It seems the nun was an opportunist, especially when it fit her agenda. Her agenda was to raise money for her charity by schmoozing up to rich and famous people. She raised a fortune but never built a hospital, or hospice, or home for children in India but did build convents in more than 150 countries! There has never been an accounting of the fortune she raised.

CNN reported on Teresa’s charity declaring, “It’s true there’s no transparency–and very little information available–on the group’s bookkeeping. CNN‘s request to interview the current head of the organization was declined.”

But sainthood continued on the fast track and Teresa is now a beloved Roman Catholic saint.

Is a secular sainthood in the works for Princess Diana?

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

Jeramiah wrote about people who could not blush in Jer. 6:15. “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.” That’s where we are today in our churches. Church leaders and laymen can’t blush because they don’t see any wrong in their aspirations, actions, and accomplishments. Nothing seems to be wrong anymore.

The leaders of the Episcopal Church USA, the Presbyterian Church USA and the United Church of Christ left the Scripture long ago and have lost their ability to blush. They departed sound biblical doctrine many years ago, and they’re now celebrating “marriage equality.” Wicked living always follows bad doctrine. These churches advocate transgenderism, but normal sexuality is considered quaint. Other church groups are quickly coming to the same conclusion.

Gordon Clanton writing in the Presbyterian Journal opined, “Not all sex outside of marriage is bad….In the age of the Pill we assert that sex is (morally) neutral. The young man who is determined to wait until marriage has put sex on too high a pedestal.” Clanton may not blush but I’m sure great Presbyterians such as Billy Sunday, Clarence E. Macartney, J. Gresham Machen, and Carl McIntire are blushing if that is possible in Heaven.

A church south of Richmond, VA doesn’t care about “material things” so they worship in the nude even in cold weather. It seems many preachers have lost the ability to blush and also lost their minds. Nothing is sacred to them.

At HerChurch/Ebenezer Lutheran in San Francisco that is affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the liturgy of the “divine feminine” is celebrated every Sunday. The pagan service is led by Pastor Stacy Boorn and her priestesses and staff. Desiring a little religious hocus pocus to justify their evil living, anything goes as they reach out to pagans. The female pastor declared, “Our prayers and liturgy reach back into the storehouse of tradition to bring forth names [such] as Mother, Shaddai, Sophia, Womb, Christ-Sophia, Midwife, Shekinah, Kundalini, She Who Is.” And no one is blushing!

Many of the interdenominational megachurches and even Baptist churches such as Rick Warren’s Saddleback Baptist Church in California have lost their ability to blush at all their concessions, compromises, and corruptions.

Rick addressed the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) that is in bed with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. He even apologized for all of us! Rick has a deficiency of wisdom since he seems to support anyone. I have a photo of him hugging Cat Stevens (known as Yusuf Islam) who supported the call for death of Rushdie because he had “insulted” Muslims. Cat also wrote, “I’m praying to Allah to give us victory over the kuffar”! Kuffar is a Muslim term for non-Muslims usually preceded by “dirty.” Rick boasted that Cat came by to visit him at his home. I think Rick may have a sense of insecurity and needs to be loved by everyone.

In May of 2015, Rick held hands with homosexual activist Elton John at a congressional hearing even joking that if they kissed it would be “the kiss heard ’round the world.” Rick doesn’t understand that perversion is no joke. Rick is a brilliant, talented man without wisdom or discernment, two characteristics, in my opinion, that are essential for preachers.

The lesbian bishop of Stockholm “proposed a church in her diocese remove all signs of the cross and put down markings showing the direction to Mecca for the benefit of Muslim worshippers.” She was the first open lesbian bishop in the world. Wonder what Martin Luther would think of that? It seems another Reformation is needed but “Luthers” are in short supply.

I blushed when the historic black Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Miami had Louis Farrakhan preach to an overflow crowd on July 30, 2015. Louis said, “I’m looking for 10,000 in the midst of a million. Ten thousand fearless men who say death is sweeter than continued life under tyranny….So if the federal government won’t intercede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!” Had I made a similar statement I would be in a Federal prison at this time. The jerk even received a standing ovation from that Baptist crowd! Has everyone lost his ability to discern between right and wrong?

I was appalled at Farrakhan’s vicious, vile, and violent diatribe but would have been almost as appalled even if he had spoken effectively about family, drugs, etc., since Louis is a rabble-rousing Muslim! I was sure the historic church was a member of the Progressive National Baptist Church convention, a group of left wing black preachers who broke from the National Baptist Church convention in 1961. However, Mt. Zion Baptist in Miami is an Independent Baptist Church! I interviewed the pastor and told him I was appalled that any Baptist would have an unbelieving Muslim in his pulpit. The pastor was very kind and we spoke for almost an hour and he professed to believe the Bible and preach the Gospel. I reminded him of the Apostle John’s admonition not to bid god speed to any who do not hold to the doctrine of Christ. This incident only proves that not all Independent Baptist Churches take a separatist stand.

“Beer and hymns” events have occurred at churches in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Cincinnati. “Beer, Bible, and Brotherhood” meets in Oxford, CT as they study Rick Warren’s bestselling book. Such events are taking place across America. Even Moody Bible Institute that trains thousands of youth for the ministry has lifted its ban on long hair for men and nose stud earrings for women and dropped its prohibition of alcohol and tobacco use for faculty and staff. (When I was a student we could not get closer than twelve inches to any female!) Biola University made a similar ruling in September of last year.

Tom Smillie, Christian beer maker, says his love of good beer has allowed him to build relationships with nonbelievers. I suppose smoking marijuana and watching porn would enhance his relationships even further!

Graduates of Taylor University, Calvin College, and other “Christian” institutions are big into beer brewing and drinking.

I blush when Fundamentalists yell about their love and adherence to the Bible (even the KJV) yet refuse to discipline wayward members, give the best seats to the high and mighty, seek the favor of political officials, preach sermons that almost say something, and imply that crowds, cash, and clout are indications of success.

The early Christians were accustomed to poverty, persecutions, and prisons. Today, we are grasping for prosperity, pleasure, and popularity. I blush knowing into whose hands modern churches have fallen.

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.

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.

All major church denominations teach church discipline when members go astray or, more correctly, live ungodly lives. Roman Catholics have always taught that concept but have been very reluctant to practice it as seen by their permitting mass killers such as Hitler to die in the church as well as major South American dictators and Mafia dons.

Baptists aren’t much better, especially large churches. After all, they don’t want to make waves, embarrass the innocent family members, destroy the ministry, disrupt the work, and other excuses for disobeying clear scriptural directives.

Frankly, the issues have been the same down through the ages. It has been common for members to sin then refuse to confess and forsake their sins and church leaders have used the same lame excuses listed above. However, there have been times when courageous leaders demanded church discipline, sometimes going to extremes as a case during the Middle Ages shows.

It seems a drunken baron stole an expensive chalice from a parish church, and was seen riding away with it. The following Sunday, the bishop draped the church in black and rang the bells as they did for major funerals. The congregation gathered and the bishop and the area priests who surrounded him, all held a lit candle. To a hushed crowd the bishop stood at the altar and called out the name of the thief and said, “Let him be cursed in the city and cursed in the field; cursed in his granary, his harvest, and his children; as Dathan and Abiram were swallowed up by the gaming earth, so may hell swallow him. And even as today we quench these torches in our hands, so may the light of his life be quenched for all eternity, unless he do repent!”

Each priest then threw his candle to the floor and stamped out the light. The thief was now an outlaw, worse than a leper or Jew! The thieving baron heard about his judgment and it brought him to a place of repentance!

His first step was to give his entire fortune to the bishop! Then he appeared at the altar barefoot, and lay prostrate praying for 24 hours. The next step was for him to kneel while 60 monks and priests beat him with clubs! (Is this where we get the idea of “beating the devil” out of a person?) Every time a blow would fall, the victim yelled, “Just are thy judgments, O Lord!” (Of course, those were not the Lord’s judgments!)

Then, with bones broken, lying on the floor bleeding, the bishop absolved him for his thievery and kissed him with a kiss of peace. He was now back in the graces of the Roman Church; however, they did not get their “church discipline” from the Bible.

If modern-day Baptists do anything, it does not compare with the above discipline as proved by the case of Dr. Bob Gray, pastor of Trinity Baptist Church, a megachurch in Jacksonville, Florida. He was considered one of the major leaders of this generation among independent Baptist preachers. He built a large church, Christian school, college, camp, and other ministries and was one of the top orators of any church group. However, he liked to French kiss little girls (according to his arrest report) in his church and school office.

Now the little girls are big girls and have come out of the closest and told their stories. Gray resigned and fled to Germany as a missionary and his assistant, Dr. Tom Messer, became the senior pastor. Before Gray left the country, the church felt a need to exercise church discipline so Gray admitted to “an indiscretion that was not sexual or moral.” He was given a standing ovation, a $220,000 home, monthly support of $500.00 and a going away party before he sailed for Germany! Just a little less severe than what the baron got from his Roman Catholic Church!

When Gray’s victims started talking, the city started acting, and Gray was arrested while in the states for a visit. His trial was scheduled for December; however he died today of a heart attack. Since his arrest in May, he has been living well in his expensive home where he entertained visiting friends declaring that he did nothing wrong. Furthermore, Trinity’s present pastor declares that the church did nothing wrong. I don’t think they did anything right! They declare that they did not mishandle the church discipline. There was no cover-up.

The legal case is totally irrelevant to the biblical responsibility of a church. Gray admitted to French kissing little girls. The church was responsible to act upon that confession. They botched it and covered it up for whatever reason.

The victims should not have to go to court to get an acknowledgement of wrong done and an apology, or financial support for all they have gone through since they were small children.

Compare how the church in the Middle Ages reacted to a thief and how Trinity (and many other Baptist churches) reacted to Gray. Maybe we moderns can learn something from the early church discipline. Pastors, maybe the Medieval discipline would be worth trying because what you are doing now is sure not working! (Written with tongue placed firmly in cheek.)

Come to think about it, maybe we should try the biblical method!