Are There Things Which God Cannot Do?

ARE THERE THINGS WHICH GOD CANNOT DO?  Yes.  God cannot sin; God cannot lie, God cannot change; and God cannot go against one of His own attributes to satisfy another.  What do I mean by that?  Two attributes of God are Love and Justice.  Can God deny His Love attribute to satisfy His Justice attribute - or can God deny His Justice attribute to satisfy His Love attribute?  No, He cannot.

And, that is what Calvinist and Reform churches are suggesting when they teach Calvinist Predestination.  What is Calvinist Predestination?  It is that, before the Creation, God divided all people who would ever be born into two groups:  the Elect and the Reprobate.   The Elect are those who are destined for eternal life in God's presence - joy, peace, and eternal happiness.  The Reprobate are those less fortunate who are destined for eternal hell, away from God's presence - pain, suffering, and eternal misery.

The obvious question arises - why would God create those who are Reprobate, just to cast them into eternal hell?  Keep in mind that hell was created for Satan/Lucifer and his fallen angels (Matthew 25:41).  It was not meant for humans who are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26).  Would God create people to be Reprobate just to fill the hell He set aside for Satan?  Would He, before the Creation, condemn billions of souls to hell for no other reason than He is sovereign?

How does that fit with either God's attribute of Love or God's attribute of Justice?  That is not God's perfect Love, nor is it God's perfect Justice.

Yet, the most common answer that those following the Calvinist and/or Reform theologies will give is, "God's sovereignty is supreme.  In His sovereignty, He can do anything!"

No, that is not true.  God cannot deny any of His attributes.  God cannot deny His perfect Love, in favor of His perfect Justice.  What kind of Justice would it be if He condemned billions of people to hell without any chance of being saved?  If anyone today condemned millions of people to death without a just trial - would we not call that person another Hitler, another Mao or Stalin, another monster?   And, our God is not a monster.

It seems to me that, in the case of Calvinist Predestination, "sovereignty" is a catch-all answer for any questions which cannot be answered directly from the Bible.

Consider this:

Why Did God Create Hell?
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/hell.cfm

Hell was created as a place of judgment for Satan and those (fallen angels) who followed him in their rebellion against God.  The Bible says that the devil and (all) his angels will eventually be consigned to hell:

"And the devil who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and false prophet are.  And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (Revelation 20:10).

Human beings, who are created in God's image, were not meant to spend eternity away from the presence of God.  The place God created for them is heaven.  Jesus spoke of this place that God has prepared for those who trust Him:

"In My Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you.  I go to prepare a place for you.  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also" (John 14:2,3).

Hell was not created for humanity.  But it is the destination for those (humans) who reject God's salvation in Jesus Christ.

 
And, this:

Why Would a God of Love Send People to Hell?
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/hell.cfm

Some people wonder how hell can be reconciled with a God of love.  Why, they ask, would a God of love allow people to go to hell?

The answer to this question is that God is a God of holiness and justice, as well as a God of love.  These moral attributes are complementary, not contradictory.  When the laws of God are disobeyed there must be a judgment.  God's laws demand that sin must be paid for.  God can still love someone, but He cannot allow sin to go unpunished.  This is the reason that Jesus Christ came to earth, to die for the sins of the world.

"Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28).

The emphasis should not be placed upon hell, but by (or on) the fact that God came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ to show His love for mankind:

"For when we were without strength in due time Christ died for the ungodly.  For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die.  But God demonstrates His own love toward us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:6-8).

God has shown His love by sending His Son to die for our sins - to take our punishment - so that we could go to heaven.  The judgment of hell is for those who refuse to accept God's love and forgiveness.

 
The key phrase in the excerpt above is:  ".  .  .Would a God of love allow people to go to hell?"  

Yes, God will allow people, using their individual God-given gift of "free will" - to choose to deny Him and condemn themselves to hell.  But, He prefers that all people use that gift to choose to follow Christ into eternal life (2 Peter 3:9).

And, finally, this:

Will God Send People to Hell?
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/hell.cfm 

The Bible speaks about a place of final judgment for those who do not believe in the salvation provided by Jesus Christ.  This place is known as hell.  It is not a geographical place, but a state of existence.  Jesus spoke of it as a place of eternal punishment.

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment..."  (Matthew 25:46).

 
On this last point I differ with the Blue Letter Bible writer, Don Stewart.  I believe the Bible teaches that heaven and hell are actual places where believers and non-believers will live eternally.  Where are they?  The Bible does not tell us that.  However, it does give us strong clues.  In Luke 16:19-31 Jesus Christ tells us of a physical place called Hades.  

Hades was divided into two separate sections or compartments, Hades Paradise (Bosom of Abraham) and Hades Torment, with an impassable barrier between them.  These were the temporary dwelling places for all who died before the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ.  Upon death, believers went into Hades Paradise (Luke 16:22) - and non-believers went into Hades Torment (Luke 16:23, 28).

Jesus promised the repentant thief on the cross, ".  .  . today you will be with Me in Paradise"  (Luke 23:43).  Why Paradise and not heaven?  Because Christ had not yet died, been buried, and resurrected again to make salvation and eternal life available to all who will receive His "paid in full" gift of salvation.  

He died to take away the sins of the world (John 3:16) - and He resurrected to assure that all people will resurrect into immortal bodies to be like Him (1 John 3:2).  The difference being that believers will resurrect into immortal bodies destined for eternal life in Christ (Matthew 26:34) - while non-believers will resurrect into immortal bodies destined for eternal punishment (Matthew 26:46).

Jesus tells us in John 14:6, ".  .  . I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through Me."  Before He came, died, and was resurrected as our Sacrificial Lamb, no one went into heaven upon death.  All went into Hades, either Paradise or Torment.  

Yet, when Christ rose from the dead, He led those in Hades/Paradise into heaven.  Since that moment, Hades/Paradise is closed and all believers who die now go directly into Heaven/Paradise.

Ephesians 4:8-10, "Therefore He says:  'When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men.'  Now this, 'He ascended' what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth?  He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things."

1 Peter 3:18-20, "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us  to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water."

 
Many will say that 1 Peter 3:18-20 tells us that Christ went into Hades to preach to those non-believers who died in Noah's Flood, thus giving them a second chance to repent and be saved.  That cannot be, for the Bible clearly tells us, "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).

While the idea of a second chance for salvation is appealing, the Bible is clear that death is the end of all chances.   Hebrews 9:27 tells us that we die, and then face judgment.  So, as long as a person is alive, he has a second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. chance to accept Christ and be saved (John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10; Acts 16:31). 

Once a person dies, there are no more chances.  The idea of purgatory, a place where people go after death to pay for their sins, has no biblical basis, but is rather a tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.  ("Will there be a second chance for salvation after death?"  http://www.gotquestions.org/second-chance-salvation.html )

 
Since 1 Peter 3:18-20 cannot be speaking of Christ offering a second chance for salvation to those lost in the Flood - nor to those souls who are already in Hades/Torment - who then did He address during those three days He was Hades?  The obvious answer is that He was celebrating with those Old Testament saints who had been waiting for Him to come and finally lead them into their eternal heavenly home, as suggested in Ephesians 4:8.

In the following excerpt, Pastor Chuck Smith gives further thought on 1 Peter 3 and on Ephesians 4:8:

Chuck Smith - C2000 Series on 1 Peter 3-5 (C2000 Series)
http://www.blbclassic.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=1&contentID=17404&commInfo=25&topic=1%20Peter&ar=1Pe_3_19

Jesus preached to the souls in prison.  Now the prophecy concerning Jesus, in Isaiah 61, says, "The spirit of the Lord is upon me; because the LORD has anointed me to preach the good tidings to the meek; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those that are bound" (Isaiah 61:1).

What is he talking about?  The prison was death by which men were bound.  They were held captive (not being in the presence of God).  Jesus came to open that prison for those that are bound, or to open up Hades (Paradise) for those people who were bound there, who died before Jesus (came and) died for our sins.  So when He died, He descended into hell (Hades/Paradise).  And He preached to those souls that were in prison.  And when He ascended out of hell, He brought with Him those who had been captive.

 
Moving on in our discussion of Calvinist Predestination, another question which I have yet to have a Calvinist/Reform Friend answer is, "If Calvinist Predestination is true, how do you know that YOU were selected by God, before the Creation, to be among the Elect?" 

Many will say, "Well, I just feel it." - OR - "I just know it."   No, that is putting salvation in your hands and basing it upon your feelings - not upon the Word of God.

There are only two ways that a person can know that he/she has salvation, eternal life in Christ, and KNOW it beyond all doubt. 

The first way would be through a "special revelation" from God, i.e., that God actually spoke, orally, to you telling you that YOU HAVE eternal life.  Has God spoken in this manner to you, telling you that YOU ARE among the Elect?  If so, you will be the first that I have met who has received such a "special revelation." 

OR, the way to know for sure, which is more Biblical and more logical - is that, through the God-given gift of "free will" - YOU have made a personal decision to believe and follow Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  In other words, that you have been born again as defined by Christ in John 3:3-5 and promised through the divine provision made possible by His death and resurrection (John 3:16).

A Scripture passage which is most frequently used to justify Calvinist Predestination is:

Romans 8:29-31, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.  Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.  What then shall we say to these things?  If God is for us, who can be against us?"

 
For some reason, they seem to skip over the initial phrase  "For whom He foreknew" and go directly to "He also predestined."       

When asked about the divine attributes of God, most believers will tell us:  God is Omniscient (all knowing); God is Omnipotent (all powerful); God is Omnipresent (all places present).

One aspect of God's Omniscience is His foreknowledge, by which He "foreknew" before the Creation who would become Christian believers and who would deny and refuse the gift of eternal life purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ.

Which Words in the Bible Express the Omniscience of God?
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_360.cfm

There are a number of words in Scripture that express God's omniscience, that He knows everything.  From them we gain insight into the knowledge of God.

Foreknowledge - He Knows What Will Happen

One key word is foreknowledge.  This means that God knows everything that will happen before it occurs.

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.  And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified" (Romans 8:29-30).

In the Book of Acts it states.

"This man (Jesus Christ) was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, or of those not having the law (that is, Gentiles) put him to death by nailing him to the cross" (Acts 2:23).

Peter wrote.

"Who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance" (1 Peter 1:2).

Another Scripture passage which folks in the Calvinist or Reform theology churches will use to justify their interpretation of Predestination is:

Ephesians 1:3-6, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved."

 
There is no question that God chose all believers before the Creation.  That is not in question.  What is in question is - WHO did He choose?  And, why were those people chosen to be the Elect - while others were allowed to be the Reprobate?

One of the key ingredients of Pastor Chuck Smith's success as a Pastor/Bible teachers was his innate ability to speak in plain old, get down with you, language.  I don't think I ever heard him trying to sound like a great scholar.  His heart was just in sharing the Word of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in plain man-on-the-street language. 

Below, Pastor Chuck explains Biblical Predestination and Election in simple easy to understand terms.  I pray that it will help us all better understand why the Bible tells us in 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

The Bible makes that promise more specific in John 3:14-16, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God so loved the world (the world, not just a prechosen Elect) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

And, the Bible summarizes that teaching in John 3:36, "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Let's take a look at how Pastor Chuck explains Predestination, Foreknowledge, and Election:

C2000 Series (Commentary) on Ephesians 1
Pastor Chuck Smith
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/smith_chuck/c2000_Eph/Eph_001.cfm

God didn't choose me after I decided to clean up my act and live for Him.  God didn't say, "Oh, all right, I will choose him."  God chose me before the foundations of the world.  Now, that gives you the key into God's choices.  Having chosen me before the foundation of the world indicates that He chose me according to His foreknowledge. 

Because God knows all things, He will never learn anything new.  If He can learn anything new, then He doesn't know all things.  James said, "Known unto Him are all things from the beginning."   So it is according to His foreknowledge, because He knew in advance.  He chose me on the basis of His foreknowledge. .  .  .

The fact that God foreknows those that are going to be saved and chooses them does not preclude any man from coming, because the scripture says, "Whosoever will, may come and drink of the water of life freely" (Revelation 22:17).  And not one person has ever come to God and been turned away by God.  God (doesn't) says, "Well, let Me see.  I'm sorry, your name is not on the list.  Too bad.  You seem like a very nice fellow.  I would like to save you, but there was a slip up in the records some place.  I guess you just can't make it."

Predestination, divine election never precludes any man.  You say, "But I don't think I like that God can make those choices.  Because, what if He didn't choose me?"   How do you know He didn't choose you? 

"Well, I am not a Christian."  Why aren't you a Christian?  "I don't want to be."  Well then, maybe He didn't choose you (because of that) and it's sort of sad.  But you can find out whether or not He (has) chosen you - by just accepting (and receiving) Jesus Christ.

And you will discover He chose you before the foundation of the world.  You see, if there is any question in it, you can answer that question tonight.  You can just say (pray), "Lord, come into my life.  I am going to be a Christian.  I am going to follow Jesus Christ." 

And you will discover the minute that you do, that God (has) chosen you from the foundation of the world.  He says, "I've been waiting for this.  Great to have you on board; come on in."  And then He'll tell you, "I chose you, (and) here you are.  I knew exactly the time, and the whole situation.  Here it is, you were chosen before the foundation of the world."

"Yea, but what if I don't want to come?"  Well then, again I say, that's tough, but you can't blame God.  God has opened the door for you.  And God has given you the opportunity.  And God has called you to come.  But, though God has called you, still He has left the door open - so that it becomes your choice.  God already knows the choice you are going to make.  But you are the one who makes that choice.   God in all of His wisdom knows the choices each person is going to make.  But He doesn't make the choice for you.  He only knows in advance that which you are going to choose.

 
In closing, can God condemn YOU to hell?  No.  That is a choice YOU have to make for yourself.  However, as Pastor Chuck tells us - God "foreknew" before the Creation the choice you will make.  And, that choice is what determines if you are among the Elect - or if you are among the Reprobate.

My Friend, you have until you breathe your last breath in this mortal body to choose to follow Christ.  After that last breath - your eternal destiny is set in concrete.  Based upon your choice, you will spend eternity in heaven with God - OR - in hell without God.   Please choose wisely, for eternity is a very, very long (never ending) time.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

On Being Southern Born And Bred!

ONCE AGAIN, I CANNOT SAY IT BETTER than the graphic below! - For we Southerners it must be the process of osmosis, for I do not recall anyone ever overtly teaching me to say "Yes, ma'am" or "No, sir."  I do not recall anyone teaching me to stand for a lady, to open the door for a lady, or that ladies go first.  

Yet, I do not recall a time in my life when I did not do those things.  Maybe it was just growing up seeing others doing it, but, I like to imagine it is just part of being Southern, an inherent Southern trait.  Do you think that God, before the Creation, just decided to make Southerners genteel and especially polite?  Now that is one form of Predestination I can embrace.

When I grew up in Alabama, we knew the meaning of being a good neighbor.  I cannot tell you how many times I saw my parents, ready to walk out the door to go somewhere - when a friend, neighbor, or relative suddenly showed up to visit.  What did they do?  Why, they took off their coats and invited the visitors to come in and visit with them.  No appointment needed, if y'all come we welcome you.

When I was newly married while in the Air Force in Denver, my wife and I were planning to visit her mom.  She told me, "Let me call to see if we can visit them."  Shocked, I asked, "You have to make an appointment to visit your own mother?"  Now, as an more mature adult, I realize that it is common courtesy to call first.  But, at that time I was truly shocked.  Back home in Alabama of the 1950s, if I had called a relative or friend to set up a visit - they would have asked, "Is something wrong?"

I can recall the culture shock when I first began to realize that all the world was not Southern born and bred.   In the winter of 1955, I was in Air Force Tech School at Lowry AFB in Denver.  One day while on a packed bus, a lady entered the bus.  When I saw her, I stood to give her my seat.  However, before she could sit a man jumped into the seat I had vacated.  It made me angry, but not wanting to start a ruckus, I said nothing - just thought to myself, "He must be a DamnYankee!"  Down South that is one word.

In the mid 1960s, living in Southern California, another "This ain't the South" incident occurred.  After a Saturday evening date, I drove my date's baby-sitter home.  The following Monday my girl-friend's coworker told her, "My daughter thought your date was weird.  He opened the car door for her and would not drive away until she was inside the house."   Poor girl, imagine the guys she must have later dated.

In the latter 1960s, my ex-wife got a chuckle out of telling me of a time when she and our three girls were riding in the car with her date.  When they reached their destination, he got of the car and stood on the sidewalk waiting for them to get out of the car.   One of my young girls commented to their mom, "He's not like daddy, is he, mom?  Daddy would have opened the door for us." 

I was happy to see that some of my Southern had rubbed off on them, even though they were from Denver.  But, I never could get them to like the taste of buttermilk.   I guess you have to be born to that taste.

The next time you hear someone say, "Y'all come back now, ya heah?" - you will know you have met a Southerner.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill 

Can A Christian Believer Be Demon Possessed?

Recently a long time Christian Friend, Ren Pana, posted an interesting question on his Facebook group page, Christians For Jesus:

"Can Christians Have Demons?"   The short answer is no.  Satan and his demons may tempt us, but they cannot dwell within us.  .  .  .

The Holy Spirit who lives in a born-again child of God bears witness with that person’s spirit that he is a child of God.  If the devil or a demon lived in that Christian, and possessed that Christian - the Holy Spirit could neither dwell in that person nor bear witness that such a person is a child of God.

Reading his post, my thoughts immediately went to several incidents in my own life.

Ren, I agree with you, and the Bible, 100%.  Before becoming a believer, we are open targets for demonic possession and harassment.  But, once we believe and receive Him as Lord and Savior we have the Holy Spirit living within us.   When God gave us His Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, He tell us in verse 5, ".  .  . For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, . . . " - and that jealous God, the Holy Spirit, will not share His indwelled home within us with demonic spirits.

I know this by personal experience.  For I can relate specific incidents in my life when demonic spirits have been after me.  First, let me share an experience which happened to me as a believer.  And, then I will share one which occurred before I became a believer twenty-eight years ago.  A drastic difference.

About twelve years ago, a young Filipina friend's mother-in-law was really into psychics and other such New Age and paranormal pursuits.  After the mother purposely ruined the marriage between her son and our Filipina friend, causing them to separate, our Filipina friend came to stay with Dory and me.  One day the mother-in-law called and since our friend was not home at the time, I talked with her.

I asked the woman to please leave this young couple alone and let them rebuild and strengthen their marriage.  But, she was determined to split them apart so that she could keep her baby boy.  As I was talking with her on the phone, I began to sense that my home office had become filled with demonic spirits.  Yes, I could sense and feel them very strongly.  Yet, I had no fear - because I know that although such spirits can harass a Christian, they cannot possess us.   Some may suggest this was only my imagination.  But, there is no doubt in my mind that I was surrounded by those demonic spirits which are found among non-believers caught up in the demonic paranormal world.

Regardless, some will still suggest that it was my imagination.  However, when she called and as I was talking with her - I had no reason to imagine this would happen.  I was not sitting there waiting for her to call so that I could imagine demonic spirits.  And, when I began to talk with her, it did not occur to me that such a thing might happen.  I knew she was into New Age and the paranormal very strongly - but, what happened took me completely by surprise.  

We talked for about half an hour and all that time the sense of demonic evil spirits was very strong around me.  Yet, the moment we ended out telephone conversation - they disappeared.  How does one sense demonic spirits?  I cannot say.  I suppose it was through my spiritual eyes, the Holy Spirit, helping me to sense (spiritually see) and be aware of their presence.  I will say that my Full Armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-20) was protecting me.

I have had other incidents when I know that demonic spirits were trying to play games with me.  One such incident happened in the early 1980s, when Dory and I were in our home in Orange, California.  At that time, not being a Christian believer, I was delving into the paranormal myself.  I had talked with a psychic about my maternal grandfather's death in 1937.  He had been shot and the local police department (both of them) in that small Alabama town listed his death as a suicide.  Yet, as I began to investigate the event - there is no way that he could have shot himself.  He was shot by someone else.  Suicide was just a convenient out for those two untrained police officers.  The day in the early 1980s when I talked with a psychic about his death, I recorded our conversation on a cassette tape.

Later that day, as Dory sat on our bed and I stood by the bed playing the cassette tape - suddenly, and very unexpected, I felt a strong hand grasp my right shoulder from behind.  My thought at that time, because I was not a Christian believer, was that it was my maternal grandfather attempting to communicate with me.  There was a strong hand grasping my shoulder from behind and, at the same time the room went icy cold like I was standing in a freezer.  I asked Dory if she had noticed anything or felt the chill - and she had not.  I rewound the tape and replayed it.  At the exact same place on the tape - I felt that hand on my shoulder again and the room went cold again.   Yet Dory noticed none of this.

This happened years before I became a Christian.   In 1987 I became a believer and began to study God's Word.   As I became more mature in my Christian faith and knowledge, when I thought back to that previous occurrence - there is no doubt in my mind that it was demonic spirits playing with me, pretending to be my dead grandfather.  

So, Ren, back to your original question regarding demonic possession.  My strong suggestion to everyone who is concerned about this happening to them - is that they make a concerted effort to seek God and become a Christian believer, a member of God's family.

Get into God's Word, get into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, for that is the only place we can find true peace and security.   As Linus tells Lucy in the cartoon below - sound Biblical theology has a way of bringing us peace.

If you will do that, He will absolutely protect you from any demonic possessions.  For, He is living within all believers - and He will NOT share accommodations with any evil spirits.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill 

Preparing Our Children - Through Bible Study And Sunday School

HOW IMPORTANT IS BIBLE STUDY IN A CHRISTIAN CHURCH?   For those Friends who have received my writings over the years, you may recall that I have often compared the Christian church to a three-legged stool.  What do I mean?  Well, a three-legged stool is pretty stable.  However, remove on leg and sitting on it becomes rather precarious.   Remove another leg and you are only bracing upon a single leg, not so stable.

A Christian church is much like that.  In my thinking, the three legs of Christian learning and maturity in a church consists of:  (1) the Sermon, (2) Sunday School, and (3) Bible Study.   How do I balance growth toward Christian Biblical maturity with those three?  The Sermon: I would suggest that, on the average, maybe 20% of what is taught is retained and leads toward Christian maturity.   In a church with a strong Christian Education foundation - I would say that Sunday School and Bible Study each contribute about 40% toward Christian maturity in believers.  

Why are Sunday School and Bible Study more effective than Sermons in growing believers toward Christian maturity?  Because in Sunday School and Bible Studies we have discussions, we share our thoughts, and we look at that Scripture verse or passage from the viewpoint of several other Christian believers.  In other words, we take apart each verse, jointly examine it in the light of our current knowledge, and we may even bring out thoughts that we have harvested from good commentaries.  In other words, we do what is taught in Christian seminaries - we are using some level of "exegesis" to examine, analyze, and seek divine knowledge of God's message to us in that verse or passage.

In a Sermon, even the best, we only sit and listen.   Do we learn from a good sermon?  Unless we are mentally blocking it - yes, we do.  But, recall how many times you have been listening to a Sermon - and your mind wandered to a task you need to finish, how many you were distracted by the actions of someone sitting near you, or you dozed off - just for a moment - but, what key point of God's Word did you miss in those moments of distraction or dozing off?

In an active Sunday School Class or Bible Study - that will not happen for you are participating in an active discussion on a subject dear to you, God's Word.

I was recently reminded of this when I received an e-mail from Scott M. Sullivan, Ph.D., President of Classical Theist Productions.  Yes, he is a Roman Catholic theologian.  So, why am I, a Protestant, quoting a Roman Catholic theologian?   For the same reason that I will quote a Calvinist or Arminian theologian on some of their writings - even though I do not support the full theology of either.

First, let me reiterate that no one is saved by a church, any church.  A person is saved in only one way (John 14:6):  through having a personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ.  And, we do that "by grace through faith" alone (Ephesians 2:8-9).

If you recall, in another writing I recently shared the words of a Christian Gospel song which I find holds so much truth.  The chorus tells us:  "It's not what's over the door of the church that you attend - That makes you a child of God and a heavenly citizen - As the eyes of the Lord look this world o'er - There’s just one thing He's lookin’ for - Can’t you see that’s what’s in your heart - And not what's over the door."

I cannot explain the Gospel any better.  It's Who you have in your heart, and not which church you attend (1 John 5:12) - that makes you a Christian believer.

Based upon that, I can read the writings of theologians from the Roman Catholic church, I can read the writings of a Calvinist church, or from an Arminian church, or from a Pentecostal church, etc. - and learn from those writings.   But, let me be clear.  I will not share a writing which encourages praying to anyone except God.  I will not share a writing which negates the balanced attributes of Love and Justice of God - which both Calvinist and Arminian theologies teach.  In other words, before I share a writing with you, I will do as the apostle Paul teaches in Acts 17:11.  I will examine the teacher and the teaching against Scripture.   And, I strongly recommend you do the same when reading my writings.

So, why am I going to share with you the writings and video published by Scott M. Sullivan, a Roman Catholic theologian?  Because what he is telling us goes beyond the Roman Catholic and Protestant boundaries.  He is telling us how to protect our children from the secular world's teachings.  He is telling us that we need to make sure our children are well grounded in their faith, not just from hearing the pastor or priest talk about if from the pulpit - but, from being deeply involved in the study of God's Word on a corporate level and on a personal level.  Help your children get into God's Word, the Bible.

Sullivan is telling us that we must help our children build a firm foundation of their faith now - so that when the winds of secularism begin to blow hard against their spiritual foundation, they can stand strong and defend their faith.  In other word, help your children build their spiritual home on the Rock, not on the sands of secularism (Matthew 7:24-27).  And, if you do, they will be able to stand against the storms of atheism, secularism, humanism, and other world teachings when they go out into the world, for education or for work.

Once again, let me be clear.   In Scott M. Sullivan's writing and video, he is offering a package which consists of books and further videos.   I am not recommending my Protestant Friends go that far; but, I am strongly suggesting that you take the meat of his discussion to heart.  And I am recommending that you find further apologetic material which supports and teaches your Biblical theological beliefs - teachings that you and your children can use to help prepare them to face the world outside your home and family environment.

This all boils down to one thing:  Prepare Your Children!  Prepare your children through your own Christian witness, your own strong Christian walk.   Prepare them by making sure they are well grounded and mature in the teachings of God's Word, the Bible.   Prepare them by attending church, Bible Studies, and Sunday School with them - in a church which you have already determined teaches solid Christian theology and doctrine.

Prepare them so that when they go away to school, to college, and later into the working world - they will have the Biblical foundation, knowledge, and wisdom to defend their faith - a foundation for them to stand upon when times get rough.

As you know, I have spent years debating and refuting atheists and other non-believers on different forums and venues.  But, unlike the three young ladies in Scott M. Sullivan's example below - I was well grounded in my faith and in God's Word.  So, when atheists threw Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" - and the writings of other atheists, at me - I was prepared to refute those false teachings.   Make sure you children are also prepared. 

Before you read the writing I share below, let me make one comment on Mr. Sullivan's story. 

In Scott M. Sullivan's e-mail story, he writes:

So when these two girls read "The God Delusion" - they were won over.  Richard Dawkins convinced them that Christianity was a bunch of nonsense.   Yep, these two girls lost their faith from reading just that one book.

Bill Gray Refutation:  In his writing, he seems to be suggesting that when these girls lost their faith, they also lost their salvation.  Not true!  Those girls may have lost their faith, i.e., they may have begun to doubt some of the teachings of God's Word.  But, if they were Christian believers, if they truly had Jesus Christ in their hearts (1 John 5:12, Ephesians 1:3, 4:30) - they may have temporarily lost or weakened their faith -- but, they DID NOT lose their salvation.  Once a child of God, always a child of God - as confirmed in John 10:28-29.

So, back to Sullivan's e-mail story:

A friend of mine who teaches theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville told me of three Catholic young ladies who were students there.  These girls were well-raised and strong in their faith when they got there.  But one night they got together and started talking about the best-selling atheist book written by Richard Dawkins titled: "The God Delusion."

Two of the girls decided they were going to read this book as sort of joke.  The plan was they were going to read this silly little atheist book, point out all of its flaws, refute of all of Dawkins' arguments, and make short work of this atheist nonsense.   Sadly, that's not what happened.

You see, although these girls were raised in a loving Christian environment, they were not trained on how to deal with arguments from atheists.  In all of their Christian upbringing, in all of those years attending church and reading the Bible, they were never given any good reasons to believe their faith was true.

So when these two girls read "The God Delusion" - they were won over.  Richard Dawkins convinced them that Christianity was a bunch of nonsense.

Yes, these two girls lost their faith from reading just that one book.  (see my note above, Bill Gray Refutation)  What happened next was that these two girls, now newly converted atheists, went back to tease and taunt the third girl about why Christianity was just a Santa Claus for grownups.  It's really sad but this kind of thing happens all the time.

So let me ask you this – could your kids read "The God Delusion" and come out with their faith intact?   Do your kids know what to say to other kids who have read "The God Delusion"?

Let me be blunt here – given our secular culture today, it is completely irresponsible, and dare I say it, a sin of omission - to send your kids out into the secular world without giving them proper training in Christian apologetics.  If you let your kids leave your home without teaching them how to defend their Christian faith to modern skeptics, you have done them a grave disservice.   

Scott Sullivan's e-mail gives the following writing and video link which I encourage you to visit:

WARNING: Studies Show That 60-90% Of Christian Kids Will Lose Their Faith During College
http://www.scottmsullivan.com/c101/

If you send your kids into the modern academic environment without proper preparation, their faith WILL BE CRUSHED.

Once again, let me reiterate:  If these girls had truly put their faith in Jesus Christ and the eternal salvation which He purchased with His blood on the cross, if they truly have Jesus Christ in their hearts as their Lord and Savior - their faith may be damaged through atheist/secular influence - but their salvation is still intact, protected by God Himself (John 10:28-29).

Over the years, I have had many non-believers scoff when I have shared material like that found in the link above.  Their explanation is almost always the same, "That is old news.  That does not happen anymore.  Bill, you are digging up relic material and trying to pass it off on us today."

Well, let me share an event which just happened this week at a School Board Meeting in Texas.  A seventh grade young lady bravely stands before the school board and shares how her teacher has attempted to force her secular humanism beliefs on her class - and threatened them will failure if they did not agree with her beliefs:

7th-grader Explains What Her Teacher Would Do If She Didn’t Deny The Existence Of God
Written by Michele Hickford, Editor-in-Chief on October 27, 2015
http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/10/7th-grader-explains-what-her-teacher-would-do-if-she-didnt-deny-the-existence-of-god/

Jordan Wooley, a seventh grade student at West Memorial Junior High School in the Katy Independent School District outside of Houston, testified at a school board meeting last night that her teacher forced students to deny the existence of God and threatened them with failing grades if they refused to agree.

View this newest video and read the article which offers a transcript of this young lady's testimony before the school board.   Would you want your children or grandchildren in that school?

My Friend, in the last six decades, since the Supreme Court sided with Madelyn Murray O'Hair and the ACLU, evicting God and prayer from our public schools - the situation has grown increasingly worse.  

Today, our public schools across America, from Kindergarten through the 12th grade, will welcome gay activist speakers, will welcome two-mommy/two daddy speakers, will welcome Muslim speakers and folks from all the world religions into those schools to present their beliefs to our children. 

But, none of those public schools will invite a Christian to address the students.  Why?  Because it weakens their atheist, secular, humanist teachings.  Liberal - OKAY!  Conservative - GO AWAY!  

That is the mindset of our education systems today - from Kindergarten through college.  And, if we want to protect our children, WE have to prepare them before sending them into the lions' dens of current education.

Thank you for reading this message.  Consider it an investment in the future of your children and grandchildren.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill Gray

Foreign Policy and the Constitution - Senator Tom Cotton

While I realize that political speeches are not everyone's cup of tea - I personally believe that, in America and the world today, we are in a situation which calls for we Conservative Americans to "sink or swim."    

And, I want to see all Americans "swimming" toward restoring our homeland to its pre-Obama state of world respect and economic growth.  That is why you see, and will continue to see, me add these questions to many of my Facebook posts:

Are YOU ready to VOTE IN 2016 to Restore Sanity In America?

Are YOU ready to VOTE IN 2016 to send all of the Liberal Socialists and RINOs home into permanent retirement?

Are YOU ready to VOTE IN 2016 to elect Conservative American Leaders who will listen, hear, honor, and respect the voices of "We The People" - spoken in English?

Let's all VOTE IN 2016 to take back our American homeland!   God bless you and God bless America, Bill

In recent past years, far too many Conservative Americans have become "couch potato" Americans - taking the position, "Well, my vote really does not count that much.  I will just stay home instead of voting; no need for me to waste my time."   At the same time the minority activist organizations are getting out the votes within their liberal, gay, illegal immigrant, etc., communities - and taking control of America away from the "We The People" majority who do not want to take the time to vote.   

That is why we have Same-Sex Marriage spreading across America.  That is why we see Amnesty Marches spreading across America.  That is why we are seeing a great Racial Schism growing in America.  That is why we are seeing these liberal motivated minorities taking over our school systems and teaching their beliefs to our children.

And, that is why we see Obama and his Liberal Socialist administration scoffing at and ignoring the Constitution which has been the building block, the foundation, of our American homeland for over 200 years.  

Finally, that is what Senator Tom Cotton is addressing in his speech below, given at the Hillsdale College’s Sixth Annual Constitution Day Celebration in Washington, D.C., on September 15, 2015.

In Senator Cotton's speech transcript below, the bold, italic, underline, and parenthetical emphasis is mine - to draw your attention to issues which I feel are urgent for us to consider, issues we should be talking about as the 2016 Elections are drawing close.  

If you do not have time to read the full transcript, I ask you to at least take note of those highlighted issues - and keep them in mind as you enter the voting booth to VOTE IN 2016.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Foreign Policy and the Constitution

By Tom Cotton, U.S. Senator from Arkansas
Hillsdale College "Imprimis" - October 2015 issue
http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/foreign-policy-the-constitution/

---

Tom Cotton was elected to the U.S. Senate from Arkansas in 2014, following one term in the U.S. House of Representatives. He serves on the Senate Banking Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee. A graduate of Harvard College, he studied government at the Claremont Graduate School and received his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 2002. In 2005, he was commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant in the U.S. Army, rose to 1st Lieutenant, and served deployments in Iraq with the 101st Airborne and in Afghanistan with a Provincial Reconstruction Team. His military decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, Combat Infantry Badge, and Ranger Tab.

---

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on September 15, 2015, at Hillsdale College’s Sixth Annual Constitution Day Celebration in Washington, D.C.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In the last week, President Obama moved ahead with a nuclear-arms control agreement with a mortal and unrepentant enemy, having the support only of a rump, partisan minority in Congress.  This dangerous turn of events offers an occasion to reflect on the state of American foreign policy today and on the Constitution’s place in our foreign policy.

Over the past 25 years, a major preoccupation of foreign-policy elites has been to forge a new grand strategy for the United States.  Scholars and practitioners tend to see a foreign policy adrift after the fall of the Soviet Union, when containment of Soviet expansion became obsolete overnight.  Seeing no major ideological or military rival, some believed the Owl of Minerva had taken flight, and that the end of history had reduced the need for strategic thinking.  Alas, that fantasy came crashing down along with two big towers (World Trade Center) 14 years ago this month.  Again, foreign-policy elites searched for a new strategy, this time for the age of Islamic terror.

Circumstances do change, and foreign policy, often a matter of prudence, must change with them to achieve the same ends.  Too often, however, the search for a new strategy simply becomes the search for something new.  This way of thinking carries a hint of disdain for the principles and foreign-policy traditions of our past -- and disdaining those principles and traditions is a mistake.  When the makers of breakfast cereals roll out a new product, after all, they say it’s “new and improved,” because the former doesn’t necessarily imply the latter.

Likewise, every new and fashionable idea in foreign policy isn’t necessarily an improvement.  To the contrary, we ought to pay some respect to older foreign policy ideas -- the ideas that took us from a small and weak colonial outpost to the greatest superpower in history in just 170 years.  With that track record, common sense would suggest there’s something special we can learn from the Constitution -- and the strategies that arose from it -- to help us chart our way in the world.

* * *

Our Founders gave us a constitutional democracy, a system of government that informs our foreign policy just as it does our domestic policy.  For many foreign-policy elites, especially those abroad, this is a serious problem for U.S. foreign policy.  The Constitution empowers the people, these critics say, and the people, they believe, can be ignorant, emotional, and fickle, swinging wildly from war mongering to isolationism, from moralism to callousness.  Far better, they say, is what Walter Mead has called the “auteur theory of foreign policy” -- a foreign policy guided by a brilliant strategist, insulated from the unruly masses.

One hears an echo of this viewpoint in the praise for what these critics see as the coherent and decisive strategic thinking of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping.  Putin is praised as a brilliant strategist who is redefining 21st-century warfare.  Xi has been called a game-changer in China’s rise, one whose ambitions and power rival those of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping.

I’ll admit that Putin and Xi may have stolen a march on our president here and there.  But that’s an indictment of President Obama’s particular abilities and policies, not of our system.  By the traditional measures of international influence -- economic might, per capita measures of well-being, military and trade cooperation agreements, cultural weight -- the United States far outpaces both Russia and China, as well as the rest of the world.

And while a brooding auteur (a brilliant intellectual strategist) may in fact have strategic foresight, intellect, and prudence, no man is infallible, no matter how talented.  Napoleon, brilliant general that he was, still marched the Grand Armée across the Nieman River into Russia.  Otto von Bismarck toiled for decades to unify the German states, only to see his fragile work undone a few years later by Wilhelm II’s militarism and adventurism.  In the same way, I believe that over time Putin and Xi -- to say nothing of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un or the ayatollahs in Tehran -- will also miscalculate and suffer strategic setbacks.

But the United States is different from these regimes.  Our constitutional system doesn’t depend on brilliant leaders.  “Enlightened statesmen,” as Madison wrote in Federalist 10, “will not always be at the helm.”  Our system is based on individual rights, safeguarded by well crafted, ultimately democratic institutions. While we always hope for wise leaders, our Constitution works in their absence by filtering the wisdom of the people through those institutions.

Bill Gray Note:  The Federalist is a collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution (Wikipedia).

A Federalist 10 Summary tells us, "Madison begins perhaps the most famous of the Federalist papers by stating that one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Constitution is the fact that it establishes a government capable of controlling the violence and damage caused by factions.  Madison defines that factions are groups of people who gather together to protect and promote their special economic interests and political opinions.  Although these factions are at odds with each other, they frequently work against the public interests, and infringe upon the rights of others."  (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D4N5wCIRCSeetd57bJjRFjizZYSzXWw0Ornf-DQRa1w/preview)

This approach couldn’t be more at odds with the auteur theory of foreign policy.  From that perspective, our system looks like some kind of policy-making Frankenstein.  Authority is divided between the Executive and the Legislative, and the Executive itself is divided among competing departments.  The President and Secretary of State serve short tenures compared to the kings and ministers of the Old World.  Equal representation of states in the Senate gives considerable influence to regional interests.  The arcane rules of the Senate, along with the separation of powers itself, slow the whole process down.  How could this ever work?

Yet it does, again and again.  The talent of a single leader or a small group with outsized control over foreign policy can never match the moderation, prudence, and self-correcting capability of our constitutional democracy over the long term.  And in international relations, it’s the long term that counts.

In the realm of domestic policy, these ideas are familiar.  Our constitutional system works to ensure that all the individuals, interests, factions, lobbies, and others who influence and are influenced by domestic policy are more or less satisfied -- or perhaps minimally dissatisfied.  And the same thing plays out in foreign policy.  America’s foreign policy tradition is flexible, agile, and multifaceted - and it therefore tends to produce positive results for us in a complicated world.

Again, I cannot stress enough how alien and unfashionable this way of thinking is in Foggy Bottom (Foggy Bottom is one of the oldest late 18th and 19th-century neighborhoods in Washington, D.C. where George Washington University is located) and in the West Wing, not to mention European ministries.  Among many foreign-policy elites, these democratic influences are something to be suffered and overcome -- as we’ve seen most recently in the debate about the Iran nuclear deal.

In the end, though, we usually survive mistakes by particular leaders because leaders are not the foundation of our system.  The foundation of U.S. foreign policy is the views and values of the American people, filtered by elected representatives through democratic institutions, proven by time.

This foreign policy tradition is not an accident.  When designing the Constitution, the Founders were very conscious of the need to invest the federal government with strong foreign-affairs powers, while accounting for the interests of the states and the people.

A driving force behind the Constitutional Convention was the failure of the Continental Congress to manage the foreign affairs of the young republic.  This imperative was clear in the ratification debates.  The first five papers of The Federalist are devoted to the necessity of blunting the influence of foreign powers and to the organization of U.S. military power.  Fifteen additional papers focus on international relations and civilian control of the military.

Against this background, the Constitution could be understood not only as a national charter, but also as a strategic document.  The institutions established by the Constitution to channel the conduct of foreign policy imply certain principles of foreign policy.  We ought to keep these timeless principles in mind as we craft strategy for today’s world.

One principle we find in the Constitution is so simple it’s usually overlooked: the states are stronger as a Union than as separate powers.  A Union of the states overcame divisions of culture, economic interest, and military capacity -- divisions that would have been exploited by foreign powers to turn one state against another, and to weaken and cow the American continent into submitting to their designs.

A Union strengthened the collective power of the states in their foreign relations.  It allowed them to pool their various resources to create advantages of scale and scope in military and economic power.  As Federalist 4 states, “The people of America . . . consider union and a good national government as necessary to put and keep them in such a situation as, instead of inviting war, will tend to repress and discourage it.”   Further, “If [foreign powers] see that our national government is efficient . . . our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united,  they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship - than provoke our resentment.”  Conversely, if the states remained divided, the U.S. would earn not only the “contempt” of foreign nations, but their “outrage.”

This principle came under threat -- but survived -- during the Civil War.  In his First Annual Message to Congress, President Lincoln sent a clear warning to foreign powers to refrain from interfering in the war.  At the same time, he acknowledged that “factious domestic division” exposed the nation to “disrespect abroad.”

We may take this principle for granted today, but it’s very much in play around the world.  The European Union, for example, has a greater combined population and economy than the U.S.   But political division greatly reduces the EU’s role in world affairs.  The smaller nation-states of Central and Eastern Europe, in particular, find themselves at risk from -- or perhaps at the mercy of -- Russia.  Likewise, the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, from South Korea to India, worry about China’s aggressive drive for regional hegemony.  Yet they struggle, due to their own enmity and rivalries, to form a united strategy to counter China.

The primacy of Union gives rise to a second, subsidiary principle:  treaties with foreign powers are very serious business, ought not be entered into lightly, and must be widely supported across the country.

The Founders believed the violation of major foreign commitments was a chief source of friction and war in international relations.   In fact, Federalist 3 recognized only two sources of war: direct violence and the breach of treaties.  Thus the Constitution requires that a major foreign commitment that binds our nation have a broad consensus among the people, and not result from the parochial interests of a minority or even a narrow majority.  As matters of war and peace, treaties should reflect a strong Union, not a divided nation.

This principle led to the Treaty Clause, which empowers the president to negotiate treaties - but requires two-thirds of the Senate to approve them and -- if necessary -- to demand changes. This extraordinary requirement is really just an ongoing expression of the original decision to form a Union.  And it has produced a system in which treaties routinely go through many iterations and rounds of negotiations, even after initial signature by the president.  Treaties throughout our history carry scores of conditions, reservations, and amendments added by Congress, precisely to ensure widespread acceptance among the people.

This was in fact how the first treaty ratified under the Treaty Clause played out.  The Jay Treaty with Britain -- negotiated by a co-author of The Federalist -- only gained Senate approval on the condition that Jay rework the treaty to add a clause regarding trade between the United States and the British West Indies.

Another principle of foreign policy rooted in the Constitution is that the Union must have a strong military, but one that is at the same time restrained and subject to the control of the people.

At the time of the Founding, a powerful and restrained military was something of an oxymoron.  Federalist 11, for instance, states that a strong military -- and in particular a strong navy -- is vital not only to deter aggression, but also to secure and expand international trade.  Yet Federalist 26 recognizes that military might has historically posed a grave threat to individual liberty.  This presented what seemed to be a Hobson’s choice (a free choice in which only one option is actually offered.  As a person may refuse to take that option - the choice is therefore really decided between taking the option or not.  In other words, one may "take it or leave it." Wikipedia) between a strong military and a weak military, both of which would threaten liberty over time.

But our Founders charted a way out of this dilemma.  The Constitution empowered the president, as commander-in-chief, to defend against attack and take decisive military action where necessary.  At the same time, it entrusted the people’s representatives in Congress with a wide range of foreign affairs powers as a means of fostering prudence, democratic control, and protection against tyranny.  Thus only Congress can raise and support armies; only Congress may declare war and invoke the legal obligations and protections that this state of international relations confers; only Congress regulates foreign commerce, and with it control over important levers of influence with foreign nations in order to better relations, exact costs, and prevent war.

* * *

Under President Obama, there has been considerable drift away from all three of these principles.  And that drift has contributed to the general drift of U.S. foreign policy.  Even former President Carter has said, “I can’t think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now - than when he took over.”   Our interests are threatened, our alliances are stressed, our honor is stained, and our adversaries are increasingly tempted into new episodes of adventurism and aggression.

The most recent example of this drift is the Iran nuclear deal.   This is a major arms-control agreement with a mortal enemy -- an enemy with the blood of thousands of Americans on its hands, and for whom “death to America” is a foreign-policy bedrock.  And the agreement goes to the heart of the gravest threat facing the world: a terror-sponsoring state armed with nuclear weapons.  It is precisely the type of agreement that the Founders intended to be tested and refined by the treaty process.  It is precisely the type of agreement implicating matters of war and peace that must be supported by a widespread consensus of the American people.

But the President didn’t submit the Iran nuclear deal as a treaty.  From the beginning, his intention was to circumvent the people’s representatives and obligate the U.S. to the ayatollahs by a mere executive agreement.  Instead of rallying two-thirds of the Senate to support the deal, he relied on a tiny, partisan minority to protect his executive agreement from the judgment of the American people.

This is dangerous and nearly unprecedented.  Executive agreements are and should be reserved for technical matters.  Among the first executive agreements in our history were the 1792 agreements between the United States and other nations to coordinate mail delivery.  Executive agreements have also traditionally been used to assign claims and debts between nations.  These issues are low-stakes, and are not breeding grounds for armed conflict.  They are akin to deciding whether cars will drive on the right or left side of the road.  That’s why they do not need to be tested by a super-majority vote.

Nuclear weapons agreements are different.  The dividing line between subjects reserved for treaties and subjects reserved for less formal scrutiny is not precise at the margins.  But this isn’t anywhere near the margins.  Historically, major arms control agreements that bind the U.S. have almost invariably been reached through treaty.  One notable exception was the Agreed Framework with North Korea negotiated under President Clinton in 1994, which aimed at keeping North Korea from becoming a nuclear power.  I doubt President Obama would like to cite the North Korea case as precedent -- although it surely is a precedent in its contempt for Congress, and likely in its failure as well.

Why did President Obama ignore the Treaty Clause?  The answer is stunning.  Secretary of State Kerry lamented in testimony to Congress that it is “physically impossible” to get a treaty through the Senate in these polarized times. (Bill Gray Note:  And, that is exactly why the writers of the Constitution put the Treaty Clause in the Constitution)  

Of course, this (Kerry's) logic could apply to any politically inconvenient part of the Constitution.  Moreover, Secretary Kerry must have forgotten that, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he guided a nuclear arms control treaty with Russia to ratification less than five years ago.

The simple fact is that the President ignored the Constitution because he knew the Senate would reject his deal.  This disregard for the Treaty Clause is the height of hubris.  It mistakes tunnel vision for principle - closed-mindedness for superior wisdom - and personal legacy for the vital national interest.  The nuclear deal with Iran is a travesty, one that betrays our close friend Israel, provides billions for Iran’s campaign of terror, and paves the way for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons capability.

Besides the immediate damage to our national security, the deal also damages the foundational principle that major foreign commitments should be backed by a broad consensus of the people as reflected by Congress.  This episode, added to the North Korea example, will make it extremely tempting for future presidents to avoid the expenditure of political capital required to pass a treaty.  Presidents will be tempted to reach expedient deals on momentous issues, deals that divide rather than unite the nation.

* * *

While the Iran deal is the latest blow to our foreign policy tradition, a long-festering wound is the decline of our military might.  Our military has endured 15 years of war and six years of repeated budget cuts.  It is now breaking under the burden of a mindless sequestration that indiscriminately cuts across the board and treats every dollar of federal spending equally -- whether for defense or for pork. 

As a consequence, our military is facing a crisis. The Navy has 260 ships -- the smallest number since the end of the Cold War.  Our Air Force is the smallest and oldest force in our history.  The Army and the Marine Corps are on track to drop below 450,000 and 190,000 personnel, respectively -- the bare minimum levels our commanders say we need to fulfill our missions.

These unwise cuts to our military call into question U.S. resolve and security commitments.  It’s not a coincidence that, in the span of a few years, we have seen a revisionist Russia exert its will in Ukraine and in the Middle East - radical Jihadism metastasize across the Middle East and North Africa - China project power over more and more aerial and maritime territories - and Iran out-negotiate us while it spreads chaos across the Middle East through its proxies and clients.

This picture isn’t pretty, but as I said earlier, the American foreign policy tradition has a knack for self-correction, for turning the ship around and reversing past mistakes.  To make that happen, however, we need to look back to the foundational principles of our Constitution. 

To restore respect for the Treaty Clause, we must make every effort over the next year to isolate and impugn the President’s nuclear deal with Iran as a singular, one-off agreement that ought never to be repeated.  We must put every nation and every business on notice that this deal is temporary and unique.  They must understand that U.S. sanctions on Iran -- either through new legislation or through a new president -- will return. 

We must work to elect a new president who will rescind the Iran nuclear deal -- and who will restore the credible threat of force.

Put simply, our allies and our adversaries must understand that this nuclear arms control deal reached by executive agreement is not secure.  They have to understand that it is in our interest, and in their interest, to conclude stable and long-lasting agreements by way of treaties.  And all future presidents should see that building consensus through the constitutionally mandated advice and consent of the Senate will afford them a genuine, lasting legacy.

A restoration of the Treaty Clause must be accompanied by a restoration of our military might.  Frederick the Great said, “Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments” -- in other words, inert, inaudible, and ineffective.  If we want our diplomacy to be effective and our agreements to be strong, we must rebuild our military.

The American tradition has never been to seek war, or to seek it first in a dispute.  Lincoln, again in his First Annual Message to Congress, prized diplomacy as a means of defusing tensions with foreign powers and maintaining our “rights and honor.”  But he also called for a military build-up.  “Aggressions,” said his Secretary of War Simon Cameron, “are seldom made upon a nation ever ready to defend its honor and to repel insults.”

To ensure that we are ready to defend our national honor today, we will need significantly more defense spending than Congress and the President have managed to agree upon in recent years.  Our current defense budget is little more than a political compromise, which may be appropriate for highway funding or tax policy, but which is no way to fund a military or to counter rising threats.  Congress and the President must return to the foundational principle that our military edge must not be challenged.  We must give our fighting men and women the resources they need to deter, fight, and win wars.

* * *

The Founders and generations of statesmen since have recognized the unique advantages with which the United States is blessed.  We are a continental nation, and we enjoy the protection of two oceans that separate us from the historic cauldrons of conflict in Europe and Asia.  We have abundant natural resources and an industrious society, making us a powerful trading partner.  Ours is a people slow to anger, but imbued with a martial tradition and a fighting spirit.  Our democratic culture is vigorous, resilient, and cherished by the people.  These strengths are channeled by the Constitution into our foreign policy tradition.  U.S. strategy abroad -- while not successful in every instance -- has brought us from being a world-affairs backwater to being the world’s superpower.

As we think about our future and new strategies, it would serve us well to look back at old truths.  We must hold fast to foundational principles.  We must continue our rich foreign policy tradition, and vigorously fight any efforts to undermine it.  While each Congress and president will have particular differences, we should all share the same goal: a world of peace and freedom, of prosperity and opportunity, of hope. 

We have a duty to be true to our beliefs, to use our great power wisely on behalf of freedom, guided by constitutional principle.  As Ronald Reagan admonished in his speech to the British Parliament in 1982, “Let us go to our strength.  Let us offer hope.  Let us tell the world that a new age is not only possible but probable.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So, let me close by reminding you: 

Are YOU ready to VOTE IN 2016 to Restore Sanity In America? 

Are YOU ready to VOTE IN 2016 to send all of the Liberal Socialists and RINOs home into permanent retirement? 

Are YOU ready to VOTE IN 2016 to elect Conservative American Leaders who will listen, hear, honor, and respect the voices of "We The People" - spoken in English? 

Let's all VOTE IN 2016 to take back our American homeland! 

God bless you and God bless America, 

Bill Gray