TWO GREAT AMERICANS SUPPORT PETE HEGSETH 'S PENTAGON PRAYER SERVICE

Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, was inundated with a flood of criticism after leading a prayer service at the Pentagon. Critics accused Hegseth of trying to impose his Christian faith on others and warned that it was an expression of Christian Nationalism and a violation of the First Amendment.

This kind of response, however, merely highlights the pervasive ignorance of the First Amendment and America's history. The First Amendment bans Congress from ever establishing an official state church. It does not ban prayer by public officials, which was common in America for the first 150 years of her existence.  

Hegseth merely wants to acknowledge our national need and ask God for His help. In this regard, he has the support of America 's two greatest presidents. He also has precedence on his side for the American army was a praying army from the very beginning.

Washington Ordered Every Day to Begin with Prayer

George Washington took command of the ragtag Colonial Army in May of 1775. Knowing they would need Divine help in facing the mighty British war machine, he immediately issued an order that each day was to begin with prayer led by the officers of each unit. He also began appointing chaplains throughout the different units.

He also ordered that, unless their duties required them to be elsewhere, every soldier was to observe “a punctual attendance of Divine services, to implore the blessing of heaven upon the means used for our safety and public defense.”

Washington also forbade profanity, swearing, gambling and drunkenness, explaining, “We can have little hope of the blessing of Heaven on our arms if we insult it by our impiety and folly.” He went on to express his desire that, “Every officer and man will endeavor so as to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier” (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 114).

Not only was there corporate prayer in the ranks of the Colonial Army, but Washington engaged in private prayer on a regular basis. This was confirmed by the Quaker, Isaac Potts, who lived near Valley Forge, and happened upon Washington alone at prayer in the forest. He said,

I heard a plaintive sound as of a man at prayer. I tied my horse to a sapling and went quietly into the woods and to my astonishment I saw the great George Washington on his knees alone, with his sword on one side and his cocked hat on the other. He was at Prayer to the God of the Armies, beseeching Him to interpose with his Divine aid, as it was ye Crisis, and the cause of the country, of humanity and of the world. Such a prayer I never heard from the lips of man (Hyatt, 1726: TheYear that Defined America, 115).

Not only did Washington and his troops pray, but the Continental Congress also opened each of their sessions with prayer. They also issued no less than fifteen proclamations for national days of repentance, prayer and fasting during the war. The Catholic scholar, the late Michael Novak, was correct in saying, “In all moments of imminent danger, as in the first Act of the First Continental Congress, the founding generation turned to prayer” (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 109).

Amazing Answers to Prayer

It was a grueling seven years of war, but the prayers of Washington, his troops, and the American populace prevailed. This was acknowledged in a dramatic way on the same day the British General Cornwallis ended the war by surrendering to Washington on October 19, 1783.

Washington immediately appointed Israel Evans, a chaplain in the Colonial Army, to deliver a Thanksgiving sermon to the troops that same day. A massive crowd from the surrounding region gathered with the troops to hear this sermon.

Evans exhorted them to give thanks to God, knowing that their victory was not the result of their own strength and prowess. He also declared that the same God that fought for Israel in days of old had fought for them. In poetic verse, he declared,

To Him who led in ancient days,

the Hebrew tribes, your anthems raise.

The God who spoke from Sinai’s hill,

Protects His chosen people still,

Not in ourselves success we owe, 
By Divine help we crushed the foe.

Are Hegseth’ s Critics too Proud to Pray?

Washington’s orders for prayer were not an attempt to impose his faith on anyone. It was an act of desperation knowing they had no chance against the British forces apart from Divine help. God answered their prayers, and a great new nation was born.

The critics of Hegseth fit the category of those President Abraham Lincoln admonished in his Prayer Proclamation issued at the height of the Civil War. He said that too many Americans had become “too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us” (Hyatt, 1726:The Year that Defined America, 185)!

Pete Hegseth has no desire to impose his faith on anyone. He realizes we are not sufficient in ourselves and he wants to publicly acknowledge the need and ask God for His help. In this, he has separated himself from the modern critics and joined the ranks of great Americans such as Washington and Lincoln who were not too proud to acknowledge our need for God.

This article is derived from the book, 1726:The Year that Defined America, by Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt and is available from Amazon and his website at http://www.eddiehyatt.com.

A HATRED HATCHED IN HELL

Here's Why there is Such World-Wide Hated of Jews and Christians

 

The young Jewish couple above, engaged to be married, were murdered in cold-blood as they were leaving an event at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C.  last night. The gunman shouted “Free Palestine” as he gunned them down. 

Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim were Messianic believers, i.e., Jews who had embraced Jesus (Yeshua) as the Messiah. Yaron had purchased a ring and planned to propose to Sarah in Jerusalem later in the year and introduce her to his family. Their lives were snuffed out be a demonic-driven hatred that must be confronted on every level--spiritually, politically, lawfully, and rationally.

Two People Groups With Whom God Has Made Covenant

There are two people groups in the earth that are hated by Satan and this couple represented both groups: Jews and Christians. This demonic hatred is because these are the two people groups with whom God has made covenant. Satan cannot get at God, so he viciously attacks those whom God has chosen to advance His purpose and cause.

It is a fact that the same people who hate Jews also hate Bible-believing Christians. In a recently surfaced clip, Mahmoud al-Zahar, a Hamas official, declared that after their successful takeover of the globe, the world would finally be rid of “Zionism” and “treacherous Christianity.”

Such hatred is so irrational, which is why I say it must have been hatched in hell. It must be demonic. The Hamas Charter makes it clear that it exists for the purpose of killing Jews and destroying the state of Israel. There is no hint of tolerance or a desire to live peaceably with the Jewish state, but only loathing and hatred.

Satan hates Jews because he hates God and God’s purposes. Any human instrument of God's favor and blessing to mankind will become a target of demonic attacks.

Here’s Why Satan Hates Jews

Satan hates Jews because God made a covenant with Abraham and promised that through his descendants the entire world would be blessed, and through his descendants would come the Messiah and Savior of the world.  

The world has been incredibly blessed by the Jews. For example, can you imagine a world with no Bible, no Ten Commandments, no Psalms, no Abraham, no Moses, no King David, and no Elijah. Can you imagine a world with no Isaiah, no Jeremiah, or other prophets who prophesied such wondrous and glorious things to come.

Can you imagine a world with no New Testament, no Gospel, no Sermon on the Mount, and no “love your neighbor as yourself.? Can you imagine a world with no Jesus, no Cross, no Resurrection, and no hope of eternal life?

Now, all these wonderful blessings that have touched people of all races, languages, and ethnicities have come to us through the Jewish people. No wonder that Satan hates the Jewish people! He cannot get directly to God, so he attacks those whom God has chosen to carry out His plan and Purpose.

The restoration of the modern state of Israel is a providential act of God. No one has ever heard of a people without a homeland and scattered throughout the earth suddenly returning to their original homeland and becoming a nation once again after 2000 years. But this is exactly what happened on May 14, 1948 in fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies.

Does this mean that the Jews cannot be criticized? Of course not! In the Old Testament God raised up prophets to rebuke the people and nation for their moral sins and idolatry. Israel can be criticized but those calling for the murder of Jews and the destruction of the state of Israel are pitting themselves against God and making themselves instruments of hell.

Here’s Why Satan Hates Christians

Yes, both Jews and Christians are being persecuted all over the world. In northern Nigeria Christian pastors are being murdered, their church buildings burned, and Christian children abducted and forced into Islam. Open Doors, an organization that tracks the persecution of Christians around the world, says that last year over 5000 Christians were martyred for their faith in different parts of the world.

Satan hates Jews and Christians because they are the two people in the earth with whom God has made a covenant and used to advance His purpose in the earth.

Just before He was crucified, Jesus inaugurated a New Covenant, based on His redemptive sacrifice at the Cross, for all who come to Him in faith and acknowledge Him as their Lord and trust Him as their Savior. God is continuing His purposes in the earth through this New Covenant people, made up of both Jew and Gentile.

God’s eternal purposes are at work in both people, whom He is calling together into one body through Messiah Jesus.  Paul wrote of this in Ephesians 2:14-16 where he said of Jesus, 

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation . . . that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

Yes, God has worked through the Jewish people to bring so many blessings to humanity, including the Messiah and Savior of the world. Since the Bible, the Messiah, and Christianity itself would not exist without the Jewish race, real Christians will love and support Israel and pray for her salvation.

And, by the way, support for Hamas is not protected speech under the U.S. Constitution. The Founders were in agreement that the freedoms they were implementing could only be maintained by a moral and virtuous people. Hamas is anything but that. John Adams, America's 2nd president, said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious [Christian] people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 168.

The only explanation for the cold-blooded, irrational murder of Yaron and Sarah is that their murderer was motivated by a hatred that was hatched in hell. 

Dr. Eddie Hyatt is a Bible teacher, historian, and revivalist. His numerous books are available on Amazon and his website at http://www.eddiehyatt.com. 

HERE'S WHY POPE LEO X1V SHOULD REMOVE MARTIN LUTHER'S EXCOMMUNICATION

Martin Luther Defends Himself at the Diet of Worms

I wish Pope Leo the XIV well as he takes leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. In his opening speeches he has emphasized freedom and peace. In a speech to members of the press at the Vatican, he emphasized the “importance of the 'freedom of expression' and the press” and concluded by saying, “Let us disarm communication of all prejudice and resentment, fanaticism and even hatred.”

I applaud those words of Pope Leo, but I would like to see him move beyond mere words to real, pragmatic action. The Roman Catholic Church has a history of silencing and shutting down those who have dared to disagree. I would, therefore, like to hear him address the harsh, un-Christian treatment of Martin Luther by the Catholic Church.

Luther was a devout Roman Catholic priest who never wanted to leave the Catholic Church, but desired to see it reformed according to the Gospel. As the Professor of Bible and Theology at the University of Wittenberg, Luther had begun to see how far the medieval Catholic Church had strayed from Jesus and the New Testament.

He began to boldly teach that Scripture is the final authority for the Christian, rather than the pope. He also taught that we are saved through faith in Christ alone apart from church appointed works and sacraments.

His teachings were interpreted as an attack on the power structure of the Roman Church, and he was ordered to cease. Convinced that he was on the side of Scripture, he refused. Pope Leo X then excommunicated him on January 3, 1521, calling him a “child of the Devil" and describing him as “a wild boar that has invaded the Lord’s vineyard.”

Since heresy was a civil crime, Luther would have been arrested had he not been protected by the powerful German prince, Frederick the Wise. Luther later agreed to defend himself before a religious court in the German city of Worms and was guaranteed that he would not be arrested to and from this court.

At the Diet of Worms, Luther faced down the highest dignitaries in the empire, both religious and civil. Pope Leo was personally represented by the highest dignitaries in the Catholic Church. The Roman emperor, Charles I, was also present. The court ordered Luther to recant his teachings, but he refused, saying,

I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis. My conscience is captive to the Word of God; thus, I cannot and will not recant anything, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. Here I stand! God help me! Amen!"

As promised, Luther was allowed to leave the court but after brief deliberations the court affirmed Leo’s excommunication of Luther, and an order was issued for princes and magistrates to seize Luther and turn him over to the Roman authorities. Christians were ordered not to read, print or publish any of Luther’s books, but to burn them, and such occurred in many cities.

Luther did not recant because he was convinced that he was on the right side of God and history, and history has shown he was right. The late Dr. Hans Kung, the most widely read Roman Catholic theologian in the world today, also believed Luther to be on the right side of history. He wrote,

And from a historical perspective there can be no doubt that it is not Luther but Rome which bears the chief responsibility for the way in which the dispute over the right way to salvation and practical reflection on the gospel very rapidly turned into a fundamental dispute over authority in the church and the infallibility of popes (Hans Kung, Christianity: Essence, History, And Future, 538).

One thing Luther did not have was "freedom of expression." And despite all the talk of freedom and peace, Luther remains a heretic according to Catholic doctrine. And, according to Catholic doctrine, Protestant believers are not fully Christian but are “separated brethren” and Protestant churches are not true churches but mere “Christian communities.”

Pope Leo XIV could begin a real movement toward freedom and peace by removing the Catholic Church’s ban of Luther and his designation as a heretic. This would not resolve all the issues, but it would certainly be seen as a sincere gesture of peace by the hundreds of millions of Protestant Christians around the world, including myself, who are convinced that Luther was on the right side of God and history.

Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt is a historian, Bible teacher, and revivalist. This article was derived from his books Apostolic Leadership:Returning to the Servant Leadership of Jesus and Early Christianity and The Charismatic Luther, both available from Amazon and his website at www.eddiehyatt.com.

A ROMANIZED EXPRESSION OF CHRISTIANITY?

Tracing the Roots of the Pomp and Ceremony
Surrounding the Choosing of a New Pope

The world seemed mesmerized with the magnificent pomp and ceremony surrounding the announcement of Cardinal Robert Prevost as the next pope. In the excitement of it all, Catholic news journalists found themselves declaring religious dogma rather than objectively reporting the news. One Fox News reporter, for example, could not contain his excitement, and gushed forth calling the new pope, “the direct descendant of Saint Peter.”

There is, of course, no biblical basis for such pomp and ceremony, nor for the pope being the successor of Peter. Jesus spoke against the use of special outward clothing and titles for self-promotion. He warned Peter and the other apostles,

But you, do not be called “Rabbi”: for One is your teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your “father;” for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called “teachers;” for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant (Matthew 23:8-11).

In the New Testament, we find no sign of hierarchy in the leadership of the church. Words that carried connotations of authority such as archon (ruler), timē (rank), and despot (master) are used of Jewish and secular rulers but are glaringly missing in regard to Christian leaders.

Instead, the word diakonos is used for Christian leaders and it is a word that means “servant” and carries no connotations of status, rank or authority. This means that the pomp and pageantry of the modern Roman Catholic Church cannot be traced to Jesus and the New Testament, but to Constantine and imperial Rome.

The Source of the Pomp and Pageantry Surrounding the Pope

When the Roman emperor, Constantine, converted to Christianity in 312, he began bestowing special favors on the Christians. He built magnificent buildings for their gatherings and made elevated throne-like seating for the bishops. He also began funding the salaries of the bishops. The church obviously had an impact on the emperor, but the emperor seems to have had an even greater impact on the church.

Constantine convened, at government expense, a church council that became known as the Council of Nicaea. Although he had not been baptized, Constantine opened this council and intervened in the discussions of the bishops at certain points. The most widely read Roman Catholic theologian in the world today, the late Dr. Hans Kung, wrote,

Constantine used this first council not least to adapt the church organization to the state organization. The church provinces were to correspond to the imperial provinces, each with a metropolitan and a provincial synod. In other words, the empire now had its imperial church (Hyatt, Apostolic Leadership, 50-51).

This was the Romanizing of Christianity. The bishop of Rome now had special status afforded to him by the emperor. This status would be greatly increased when, in 330, Constantine moved the capital of the empire from Rome to the town of Byzantine located in present day Turkey. Constantine renamed the town Constantinople, after himself. It is today known as Istanbul.

The power vacuum left in Rome by the removal of all the governmental apparatus from Rome to Byzantine was filled by the bishop of Rome who began to make his claim that he was the successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, and the head of all Christendom.

The Fabled “Donation of Constantine”

In the eighth century a fable began to be used by the popes and the Roman Church that supported and enhanced those claims. This fable, known as “The Donation of Constantine,” is now recognized as a myth by both Catholic and Protestant historians. Nonetheless, it served its purpose in infusing the papacy with imperial pomp and authority.

 According to this fable, Constantine, the persecutor of Christians, was smitten with leprosy and then healed by Pope Silvester who also converted him and baptized him. When Constantine later decided to move the capital to Constantinople without papal approval, he soon realized his sin and came and prostrated himself before Pope Silvester. When his sin was forgiven, he then moved the capital to Constantinople with the pope’s consent.

According to this myth, before departing, Constantine bestowed on Silvester the right to wear the Roman imperial insignia and robes and bequeathed to him Rome and all the provinces and cities in Italy and the western regions. In other words, Constantine bestowed on the Roman bishop a kingly royalty and authority like that of an emperor over all the cities and churches of the West.

Popes latched on to this fable and it became the basis for the papal throne and the pope’s royal insignia, garments, entourage and crown. It became the basis for popes exercising civil as well as spiritual authority.

In addition, the story implied that Constantine had received his authority for establishing the Byzantine empire of the East from the bishop of Rome. This was used by later popes to claim universal authority over all churches everywhere, even those of Byzantine.

Found to be False

It was not until the 15th century that this story was challenged by the Catholic official and historian, Lorenzo Valla. The Donation of Constantine is now widely recognized, even by Catholic historians, as fictitious. Nonetheless, it served its purpose in providing a powerful argument for the medieval popes to further their claims of universal preeminence and authority.

Indeed, after Constantine, the Romanizing of the church continued, leading the historian, Rudolph Sohm, to say, “The constitution of the Church was, in the main, modeled on the  organization of the Empire.” And the late Cardinal Leon Joseph Suenens admitted,

When I was young the Church was presented to us as a hierarchical society: it was described as “juridically perfect,” having within itself all the powers necessary to insure and promote its own existence. This view reflected an image of the Church which was closely modeled on civil, and even military, society (Hyatt, Infallible Pope: Key to Unity or Source of Division, 29).

After Constantine, the bishops were generally looked upon as the successors of the apostles and the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter, the chief of the apostles. They began dressing in imperial regalia, surrounded by Romish pomp and ceremony. This was based, not on Scripture, but on Roman imperial custom and law. Kung has commented on this, saying,

Bishops were accorded secular titles, insignia and privileges which up to then had been reserved for the emperor or high officials: candles, incense, a throne, shoes, the maniple, the pallium and so on (Hyatt, Apostolic Leadership, 49-50).

So, the grandiose ritual and ceremony that we have observed in the choosing of a new pope is clearly rooted in ancient, imperial Rome, not in Jesus and the New Testament.

Consider Ourselves

But before we become too critical, we must come down off our own religious thrones and consider to what degree we have been impacted by modern culture. To what degree are we preaching an “Americanized” Gospel that has more in common with Hollywood and Wall Street than with Jesus and the New Testament?

There is plenty of room for repentance in Protestantism as well as Catholicism. Let us, therefore, pray for the new pope and pray that during the next decade there will be a return to Jesus and the New Testament throughout the universal church. We have the promise of Joel 2:28, repeated by Peter in Acts 2:17,

And it shall come to pass in the last days,” says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams, and on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out of My Spirit in those days, and they shall prophesy.

Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt is a Bible teacher, historian, and revivalist. This article was derived from two of his books, Apostolic Leadership and Infallible Pope: Key to Unity or Source of Division. Both are available from Amazon and his website at www.eddiehyatt.com.

LIVING ON THE RESURRECTION SIDE OF THE CROSS

Throughout history the Church has emphasized the passion, the sufferings, and the death of Christ on the Cross, and thus highlighting the sufferings and sorrow of earthly existence. This is well and good, but we must not park there. There is the other side of the Cross—the Resurrection side—that we must embrace and live in.

On the suffering side of the Cross, the disciples of Jesus, as depicted in the Gospels, are dull, fearful, and selfish, even arguing over who will be the greatest in the kingdom. On the Resurrection side of the Cross, as depicted in Acts, everything has changed. They are now alive, insightful, and fearless as they proclaim the Good News of Jesus and His Resurrection. They are living on the Resurrection side of the Cross.

I have preached the funerals of my father, my mother, and two brothers. In each case, I experienced, not just a sense of comfort, but a sense of jubilant triumph because of the Resurrection of Jesus. Living on the Resurrection side of the Cross makes all the difference in the world when facing death.

Living on the Resurrection side of the Cross also makes all the difference when facing devastating situations in life. In the early days of our marriage and ministry, Sue and I lost everything, including a place to live. A God-given vision and ministry seemed to have died.

One day, however, as we prayed, the Holy Spirit rose up in me and began praying through me in tongues. I could actually feel His presence flowing up from my spirit and out through my mouth. All the time this was happening I was hearing these words, “Don’t be afraid of death because I Am the Resurrection.”

I immediately recalled that these were the words Jesus spoke to Martha at the tomb of Lazarus after He had said to her, “Your brother will live again.” Martha had replied, “I know He will live again in the resurrection at the last day.” Jesus then said, “I Am the Resurrection” and proceeded to raise Lazarus from the dead (John 11:23-25).

Through this encounter, God was calling me to live on the Resurrection side of the Cross. I also realized for the first time that the Resurrection is more than just a past or future event. The Resurrection has been personified in the person of Jesus Christ. Our resurrected Lord is now living in His people through the person and power of the Holy Spirit.

After the above experience, we listened, persevered, and took a step of faith. A Catholic brother whom we had never met was sent our way and made a building available to us. We opened the doors, and a powerful revival broke out. The building quickly filled to capacity with standing room only. Out of death, Resurrection life had burst forth!

The New Testament Church knew nothing of an Easter Sunday. They did not celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus once per year. Read Acts! They were consumed with the reality that Jesus was alive and His Resurrection was the center of their life and the daily focus of their witness and preaching. They lived on the Resurrection side of the Cross.

I pray that this Resurrection season the modern Church will experience a renewed vision of the significance and magnitude of Christ’s Resurrection. I pray that once again the people of God will live on the Resurrection side of the Cross.

Dr. Eddie Hyatt is an author, revivalist, Bible teacher, and church historian. This article is derived from his books, Discovering the Real Jesus and Why I Believe in God, both available from amazon and his website at www.eddiehyatt.com.   

 

WHAT WE CAN LEARN ABOUT EFFECTIVE SPIRITUAL WARFARE FROM CHARLIE KIRK AND PAUL

In my opinion, Charlie Kirk is the most effective practitioner of spiritual warfare in America today. He utilizes an approach that is almost absent from the modern church but is clearly laid out by Paul in his 2^nd letter to the Corinthians. It is also the method Paul used with great success in the pagan, idolatrous city of Ephesus.

This approach to spiritual warfare amounts to what I call “dismantling false belief systems.” This approach is clearly delineated by Paul in II Corinthians 10:4-5 where he says,

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but are mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds, casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God . . ..

False Belief Systems Must be Dismantled

The English word “imaginations” in this passage is a poor translation of the Greek word logismous, which refers to a way of thinking or a belief system. This is why the NKJV and NIV translate the word as “arguments” and Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon defines it as “reasonings such as are hostile to the Christian faith.”

The Greek word for “casting down” is kathairesin and is a very intense word. It means to “take down” or “demolish” or “dismantle.”

Paul is here saying that we are to dismantle those false belief systems by which Satan holds people, cities, churches, and nations in bondage. We have a model of how this can happen in Luke’s account of Paul’s ministry in the pagan, idolatrous city of Ephesus

Paul’s Modus Operandi in Ephesus

Ephesus was a very idolatrous and occultic city. It was home of the massive and ornate temple of the famous mother goddess, called Diana by the Romans and Artemis by the Greeks. Luke says that Paul, during his time in Ephesus, spent two years reasoning daily in a public lecture hall known as the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9-10). This was his approach to spiritual warfare in Ephesus.

The word “reasoning” in this passage is from the Greek word dialegomenos and it means to “dialogue” or “reason.” This indicates that Paul gave time and space for people to comment, challenge and ask questions about his message. He did this because he knew that if there was to be ultimate change in their lives, he would have to dismantle their present belief system or way of thinking.

Paul was aware that Satan has no real power for he suffered absolute and total defeat through the cross, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Satan’s only power is in lies and deceptions. That is why Jesus referred to Satan as a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44b) and Revelation 12:9 refers to him as, that serpent of old, the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world. 

Paul would have been aware of the words of Jesus in John 8:32, You shall know the truth and the truth shall make your free. This is why he would dialogue with these pagans for hours per day, every day. It was not enough to preach a feel-good sermon and have those interested to repeat a prayer and fill out a card. They must be given a whole new way of thinking. By dismantling their false belief systems, Satan would no longer be able to hold them in bondage.

His method worked for eventually people began bringing their books of sorcery and magic, piled them up and burned them publicly. Luke says the cost of the books was 50,000 pieces of silver, an enormous sum of money, which shows the dramatic change taking place in their thinking.

The economy, which was based on the tourism related to the temple of Diana, also began to collapse. This all happened because Paul spent two years dismantling their false belief systems.

Charlie Kirk’s Approach is Like Paul’s

Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) goes to university campuses, not to entertain or to be liked by the students, but to dialogue with them and challenge their worldview. His approach is like Paul’s in Ephesus and is very effective. In fact, he is credited with turning the youth vote to Donald Trump and helping put him in the White House.

Charlie is a devout follower of Jesus and is not shy about defending his faith but does not go to a university campus to preach a sermon. With the university’s permission, he will set up a sound system in the open air with his own microphone and a microphone for the audience. He then invites students to make their case for transgenderism, atheism, support for Hamas, hatred for Trump, etc.  

With thousands of students gathered, the dialogue begins. He listens but politely interjects, challenges, and dismantles their false belief system in front of the other students. The results are amazing and similar to the results of Paul’s dialogues in Ephesus. With false belief systems being dismantled, Satan is losing his hold on the younger generation.

Thousands are now attending these dialogues on secular campuses and TPUSA chapters are springing up on campuses across the land. Politically liberal students are becoming conservative and Christian students are getting what many never got from their local churches—a rational belief system that equips them to defend their Christian worldview.

The results remind us of those described by Luke concerning Paul’s daily dialogues in Ephesus. He wrote, And this continued for two years, so that all of Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks (Acts 19:10).

The Lesson for the Modern Church

The lesson for the modern churches is that we must be more than entertainment centers. There is a place for good Christian entertainment, but we will not hold the youth by merely entertaining them. We must be about the business of making disciples and preparing them to dismantle the false belief systems that Satan is using to hold the masses in his grasp.  

In other words, this is no time for a consumer-friendly approach. This is no time to be overly concerned about offending people and being “liked” by contemporary culture. It's time for Christians in America, and the world, to rise up, take the truth of God’s word, and dismantle the false belief systems that Satan using to hold this generation in his grasp.

Dr. Eddie Hyatt is the founder of the "1726 Project" and the author of numerous books on Biblical issues and revival history, including his book, 1726, which documents how the First Great Awakening gave birth to America and ignited an Abolition movement that eventually brought about the end of slavery. These books are available from Amazon and his website at www.eddiehyatt.com.

WHY AMERICA'S FOUNDERS WOULD BE APPALLED AT JUDGE BOASBERG'S GRAB FOR POWER

On Wednesday, Federal District Judge, James Boasberg, continued his unprecedented grab for power by ruling that “probable cause exists” to hold Trump administration officials in “criminal contempt” for violating his orders in mid-March to halt the deportation of Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador.

Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Georgetown School of Law, admitted that such a move is odd, saying, “Holding federal executive branch officials in criminal contempt is just about unheard of.”

America’s founding generation would be stunned by such a grab for power by an unelected individual. They all harbored a deep mistrust of human nature and feared governmental power falling into the wrong hands. In the most popular book of that era, Common Sense, the author, Thomas Paine, wrote, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”

The Biblical Basis of the American Republic
"Fallen Humanity Cannot be Trusted with Power"

America's Founders would all agree with C. S. Lewis who said, “Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows." Because they believed human nature to be flawed because of original sin, they formed a government that would keep power out of the hands of any one person or group of persons. 

Whereas modern liberalism claims that human nature is essentially good and that people only need a change of environment and circumstances to improve their behavior, the Founders held no such utopian view of the human condition. "Take mankind in general," said Alexander Hamilton, "they are vicious." James Madison added, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

The historian, Benjamin Hart, wrote, "A central assumption of America's Founders was original sin, meaning the corruption of man's character." (Hyatt, America's Revival Heritage, Second Edition, 95). They, therefore, divided the powers of government into three branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.

As another check on power, the Founders, in Section 1, Article 9 of the Constitution, forbade the government from issuing honorific titles of nobility and they forbade any government employee from receiving such a title from a foreign state apart from an act of Congress. In Section 10, they forbade the states from issuing honorific titles of nobility. 

In other words, they outlawed aristocracy in America. The Founders would all agree with Sir John Dalberg-Acton who said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” 

Power Resides with the People

The Founders envisioned a government wherein power resides with the people, not a king, an aristocracy, or unelected judges. This is why the U.S. Constitution begins with the words, “We the people . . ..” Abraham Lincoln described America’s government as being “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Since power is to reside with the people, laws are to be passed by the representatives of the people in Congress—the legislative branch. The president—the executive branch—is to execute and enforce those laws passed by the representatives of the people. Judges—the judiciary branch—are to interpret and apply those same laws to individual cases that come before them.

District judgeships are not in the Constitution. They were created by Congress to take the load off the Supreme Court by dealing with cases in their district. Judges were never meant to make rulings that apply across the board to the entire country. However, that is exactly what is happening as unelected judges legislate from the bench and overturn the will of “we the people.” 

Donald Trump was elected by the people of the United States, and the president is the only government official elected by all the people. If successful, the the actions of Judge Boasberg would completely undermine the American system of government wherein power lies with "we the people."

The Way Forward from Here

Jesus clearly taught that leadership is to be characterized by humble service, not pompous power, and America's Founders wholeheartedly agreed. This is why George Washington exhorted the governors of the various states to pattern their lives after Jesus (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 120).

This is why Washington and all the Founders would be appalled at an unelected official's arrogant reach for power over the president and executive branch. Their view of leadership was based on Christian teachings, which eschews such pursuits of power. This is why Dr. Michael Novak wrote,

Far from having a hostility toward religion, the Founders counted on religion [Christianity] for the underlying philosophy of the republic, its supporting ethic, and its reliable source of rejuvenation (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 171).

This is a critical moment in time when we, as the church, must be about our primary calling of being “salt” and “light” to this generation, calling the nation back to God, rebuking the ungodly pursuits of power, and directing the people to pray and expect another Great Awakening to revive and renew the church and the nation.

This article was derived from the books 1726: The Year that Defined America and America's Revival Heritage (Second Edition) by Eddie L. Hyatt and available from Amazon and his website at www.eddiehyatt.com