Patrick Henry: We need you! Jerry Falwell urges Americans to pray for new, Godly leaders

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Sunday, July 7, 2002 | Rev. Jerry Falwell

[f.Christian]

and calling all the residuals---technology/science === evolution to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION--DECLARED a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY...against God--man--society!!

The LEAD shield/protection between state and religion(evolution/atheism) is gone---this is chernobyl---radiation poisoning---NUCLEAR SOCIAL ANTARTICA/AMERICA!!

Presto...the liberal-evo-ATHEIST-taliban---poisoning of America!

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for the ping. I wouldn't want to miss this thread. I have a few points of disagreement with Falwell, but on the whole he's okay with me. (I like Billy Graham better, but so does almost everyone else.) Anyway, Falwell is right on with these remarks about ol' Patrick Henry.

[BenR2]

I once saw a public forum in which Falwell participated. A man quoted an Old Testament verse in which God promised that his covenant with Israel would never be broken. Why then, the man asked, must Jews accept the "new covenant" of the New Testament? Falwell got a big laugh from the yokels by saying, "Sir, you'd know better than to ask that question at Liberty Baptist!"

Have paid Falwell very little attention since.

Falwell should have answered: God made several covenants with Israel, some of them required a human response (e.g., the Palestinian Covenant enunciated under Moses), and which the Israelites failed to keep.

Other covenants, however, e.g., the Abrahamic Covenant (first enunciated in Genesis 12:1-3, but later reaffirmed and enlarged upon in later passages in Genesis), as well as the New Covenant, first prophetically foretold in Jeremiah 31, were Divinely unilateral covenants that did not depend in any way on man's (i.e., Israel's) response. Those unilateral Covenants will not and cannot be broken.

The New Covenant is first (prophetically) enunciated in the Old Testament, when Jeremiah writes,

"31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD."

[BenR2]

Falwell would have seen Henry having beer at breakfast (very common in the 18th century) and agitated to have him hanged.

Your weak attempt at humor falls flat here.

Your statement imputes a point of view to Falwell that is absurd. Falwell knows that many Christians even today drink beer and wine. Even though he disapproves of that practice, he nowhere calls for anyone's hanging.

Perhaps you resent Falwell's exercising his Constitutionally recognized freedom to preach his conscience on the use of alcohol.

Can you not separate this particular doctrine (with which you may disagree) from the other things that Falwell says and stands for?

Or, are you to smallhearted to see that the man truly loves God and his country.

[RJCogburn]

The Bible does state that when a country turns from God his protection is lifted. If that is the case now then Falwell is correct.

The idea that somehow we, not the terrorists, not OBL, not the other bad guys, but we are responsible for the horror of 9/11 is just plain obscene.

[RJCogburn]

Can you not separate this particular doctrine (with which you may disagree) from the other things that Falwell says and stands for?

Sure, I have no problem with him teaching that one ought to not use alcohol, even if do not agree.

I have a very large problem with his sanctimonious stupidity that blames us for 9/11.

[Tribune7]

Falwell, but on the whole he's okay with me. (I like Billy Graham better, but so does almost everyone else.)

ditto that.

[SteamshipTime]

I don't know. Falwell apparently didn't either but didn't have the integrity to admit it.

[SteamshipTime]

Can you not separate this particular doctrine (with which you may disagree) from the other things that Falwell says and stands for?

Of course I can. But based on his smug moralistic statements, I doubt Falwell would be happy with a constitutionally-limited government which is precluded from sending tax dollars to Israel or decreeing what people can and cannot do with their own bodies. He is an authoritarian, not a lover of liberty.

[Michael2001]

The question is a loaded one meant to create conflict. One can do this quite easily between two different religions or even two denominations.

One could ask since Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah then do they think he is a liar. One could ask the same of Protestants what they think of the Pope, and the same of non-Mormons what they think of John Smith (apologies if I have the wrong guy).