Case Study in the Rise of a False Doctrine or Misinterpretation of Scripture: Preservation Passages

Paul told Timothy that from a child he had known the holy scriptures (1 Tim 3:15).  God wrote scripture so that people could understand it, so it isn't God and it isn't the Bible that people don't understand it.  What is it?  What happens?  Many things.

Men teach false doctrine.  They conform scripture to their teachings.  People might not get the Bible right because they have been taught something false by false teachers.  Their misinterpretations of scripture have been taught to them.  That's why they misinterpret it.  You've heard Jehovah's Witnesses' take on John 1:1.  That's what I'm talking about.  They didn't come to that position on their own -- they were taught it by false teachers.

Roman Catholicism kept homogeneity through police power.  You had two options:  conform or suffer.  You didn't have the Bible and your doctrine was what the church told you.  Roman Catholicism wouldn't trust people to study the Bible on their own.  They were wrong to keep people away from scripture, but they were right about the multiplication of misinterpretation from people with the Bible on their own.

Also men come to scripture with presuppositions.  They might arise from popular teachers.  They conform scripture to their presupposed positions, ones that might conform to personal freedoms or conventional wisdom.

Scripture is its meaning.  Scripture is what it says.  The Bible isn't a vessel into which we can pour what we want it to teach or say.  It isn't God's Word when it is just what you want it to say.

Plain sense of scripture says God preserved every Word for every generation of believer, that is, He preserved it for His church like He said He would.  You read passages that teach preservation of scripture either explicitly or implicitly and you get a very particular understanding.  It's clear.  It's also what people have believed.  They conformed their publication of the text to their biblical presuppositions.

In the nineteenth century, professors met their inference of manuscript evidence.  They did not refer to passages on preservation and historical beliefs.  They acted on their uncertainty.  Later men, who professed to be Christian, tried to adapt those passages and those teachings to their presumption of reality.  Scripture was not their reality.  They relied on their observation and experience.  Textual criticism drew from the wells of infidelity.  Professing believers came along later to conform their interpretation of preservation passages to this infidelity.

False doctrine and misinterpretation of scripture often come from the pursuit of reconciling the plain sense of a passage with a popular notion.  This is not living by faith.  It doesn't please God.  It perverts the meaning of the Bible.

Keswick's Corrupt Gospel: in Keswick's Errors--an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 7 of 17

Keswick adopted the error of the Broadlands Conference[1] and its successors[2] that Christians can be justified but unsanctified[3] if they do not enter into the secret of the Higher Life.  The related Keswick weakness, likewise adopted from Broadlands,[4] on saving repentance[5] and surrender to the Lordship of Christ at the point of the new birth and the necessity of a conscious and clear conversion[6] is another fearful error.  Keswick’s related idea that Christians can be brought into bondage to sin in the same way that unsaved people are under the dominion of sin[7] is similarly erroneous and very dangerous. God swears in the New Covenant:  “I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people” (Hebrews 8:10).  Scripture promises the saints:  “[S]in shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14).  Indeed, this blessed promise undergirds the command to the believer to yield to God (6:13).  Thus, when Keswick affirms that “such sins as . . . falsehood, theft, corrupt speech, bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour, railing, [and] malice[,] may gain such dominion over [believers] that [they] forfeit [their] freedom, and . . . become like a second nature”[8] it is clearly in error.  Indeed, based on Romans 6:13-14, such Keswick teaching hinders believers from yielding to God by taking away from them the precious promise that sin will not dominate them.  Keswick follows Robert P. Smith and the Oxford Convention[9] in teaching that Christians “are to be freed from the dominion of sin,”[10] but Scripture states that Christians are freed from the dominion of sin (Romans 6:14).  The Christian’s freedom from sin is actual, not merely potential.[11]  It is a blessed fact that Keswick is in error when it declares that “a Christian . . . [can] become an entire worldling.”[12]  The power of the Son is greater than what is stated in Keswick theology:  “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” (John 8:36).[13]  There are no exceptions—Hallelujah!

               Keswick fails to warn strongly about the possibility of professing believers not truly being regenerate, although this is a clearly Biblical theme (Matthew 7:21-23; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Hebrews 12:15).  It adopted its unscriptural practice because Hannah and Robert P. Smith rejected self-examination, following Madame Guyon and other reprobates.  Their rejection of self-examination passed from Broadlands[14] through the Oxford and Brighton Conventions into Keswick.[15] Keswick also adopts a dangerous teaching when, following Robert and Hannah W. Smith,[16] it states, without any explanation or qualification,[17] that “some are regenerated without knowing when.”[18]  What is more, its unbiblical concept that believers can be justified but not sanctified, coupled with its rejection of separatism and its stand with broad Protestantism, rather than with Biblical Baptist churches composed of visible saints, leads Keswick to make statements such as the following:

Christians . . . not advancing in holiness at all . . . [is] widely prevalent . . . [or] almost universal[.] . . . The vast majority of Christians . . . [are] apparently . . . making no advance or increase at all . . . [but live in] defeat and failure . . . full of futile wanderings, never enjoying peace and rest . . . their own spiritual condition absolutely unsatisfactory . . . stop[ping] short in their experience of the blessings of salvation with the . . . forgiveness of past sins and with the hope of Heaven.[19]

The idea that the “vast majority of Christians” never grow but live in an “absolutely unsatisfactory” spiritual condition is a very dangerous misdiagnosis of the spiritual need of the generality of Protestant church members, who are lost and who need to be truly converted and then to separate from their false religious denominations and be baptized into historic Baptist congregations.[20]  Such people need spiritual life, not Higher Life preaching.  Backslidden saints are certainly a serious problem, which should not be minimized.  However, neither should the Biblical fact that all believers will be different or the possibility of false profession be neglected.  Keswick’s setting aside of Biblical self-examination, its teaching that the vast majority of Christians make no advance in spiritual life at all, and its many other weaknesses on the nature and power of the gospel, are extremely spiritually dangerous.  Many are in hell today because of these toxic Keswick errors.

See here for this entire study.

TDR

---

[1]              E. g., at Broadlands people who were allegedly already true Christians came to a post-conversion point where “they took Christ to be their Saviour, not only from the guilt but [also] from the power and practice of sin” (pg. 125, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple.  London:  Printed for private circulation, 1890).  Broadlands affirmed that one could be spiritually alive and yet manifest no outward evidences of it whatsoever (pg. 249, Ibid.).  Then again, since as a Quaker universalist Mrs. H. P. Smith believed that every man on earth has spiritual life because of the Divine Seed in him, yet it is painfully obvious that the vast majority of men do not live holy lives, the effete impotence of the Broadlands and Keswick view of spiritual life is very easily explicable.

[2]              For example, at the Oxford Convention:

[The] testimonies all agreed in this, that the speakers had not for a greater or less period after their conversion experimentally known the secret of victory, and that consequently for a longer or shorter time their Christian lives had been full of failure and defeat; but that at last they had been taught either directly by the Spirit through the Scriptures, or through the testimony of others—that the Lord Jesus Christ was able and willing to deliver them, not only from the guilt of their sins, but also from their power [for He had not delivered them from the power of sin at their conversion]; . . . [t]he convincing nature of these testimonies, and the Scriptural teaching that was brought forward, seemed to carry the truth home to many hearts[.] (pgs. 290-291, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago:  Revell, 1874)

[3]              “The Disjunction Between Justification and Sanctification in Contemporary Evangelical Theology,” by William W. Combs (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 6 (Fall 2001) 17-44), provides a useful overview of the historical development of the concept that justification and sanctification may be divided and offers a critique of this erroneous and dangerous theological affirmation.

[4]              Thus, e. g., “Lord Mount-Temple was not only a believer but a disciple” (pg. 44, The Life that is Life Indeed:  Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.  London:  James Nisbet & Co, 1910), for one could be the former without being the latter.  A Broadlands evangelistic appeal could be, not to repentance and faith in the finished work of the crucified and risen Christ, but to “Come to God . . . for the forgiveness of sins, which all might have, who really desired and asked for it” (pg. 224, The Life that is Life Indeed:  Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.  London:  James Nisbet & Co, 1910).  If, in Broadlands teaching, men are lost at all—and such is very, very far from clear, so that an eternal hell, for example, is not to be mentioned—salvation allegedly comes by asking, rather than, as in the Bible, by the instrumentality of repentant faith alone, whether one asks or not.

[5]              Early Keswick weakness on repentance carries over to modern advocates of classic Keswick theology.  For example, modern Keswick evangelist John R. Van Gelderen misdefines the primary verb in the NT for repentance, metanoeo, as merely “to change one’s mind,” and then argues that to “make repentance more than this exchange of ways of thinking is to make repentance something additional to the other side of the theological coin of faith . . . this violates the usage of Scripture.”  Consequently:  “If repent means turning from sins, why did Jesus die?” (http://revivalfocusblog.com/series/repentance; cf. pgs. 190-200, The Evangelist, the Evangel and Evangelism, John R. Van Gelderen).  Contrast Ezekiel 33:11; Revelation 16:11; 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10, etc.

[6]              Thus, e. g., at Broadlands three stages in spiritual life were set forth—but not one of the three was genuine conversion.  One could have spiritual life, “advance to higher life” and ascend the three-fold spiritual ladder with a conversion that was as clear as the mudpit of a sinner’s unregenerate life, or without any conversion and regeneration at all (pgs. 191-193, The Life that is Life Indeed:  Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.  London:  James Nisbet & Co, 1910).  After all, as the Quakers taught, the supernatural impartation of a new nature in regeneration and conversion were unnecessary—all men have the Divine Seed, and they thus do not need and ought not to be evangelically converted.

[7]              In light of the fact that Hannah W. Smith confused conversion with mental assent to the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and both she and her husband, the theological sources of the Keswick theology, were unconverted, it is not surprising that Keswick downplays the power and certainty of the change associated with true conversion.  The influence on Keswick of Anglicanism, a denomination teeming with religious but unconverted people, and of Quakerism, which denied the necessity of conversion at all, also make it easy to understand how the weakness of the Keswick doctrine of regeneration and conversion developed.  The demons called up by Lord and Lady Mount Temple at Broadlands would also have offered mighty supernatural assistance in perverting of the gospel (cf. Matthew 13:19).

[8]              Pg. 47, So Great Salvation, Barabas.

[9]              E. g., on pg. 153, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago:  Revell, 1874, Robert P. Smith teaches that Christians are under the dominion of sin until they “accept the glorious emancipation” offered in the Higher Life, an affirmation he supports by forcing Romans 6:14 to mean exactly the opposite of what it actually states.  The “saint . . . having been freed from the guilt of sin,” is then to “com[e] to Christ to be freed from its power” (pg. 43, Ibid).

[10]             Pg. 63, So Great Salvation, Barabas.  Compare the misrepresentation by William Boardman:  “The bulk of professing Christians . . . [are] indifferent, or opposed to the glorious truth that Jesus can deliver from the dominion of sin,” but the minority who enter the Higher Life discover that “sin had no longer dominion over them” (pgs. 58, 141, Life and Labours of the Rev. W. E. Boardman, Mrs. Boardman).

[11]             John Murray notes:

While Keswick . . . places a much-needed emphasis upon Paul’s teaching in Romans 6, there is at the same time shortcoming in the interpretation and application of this passage and of others of like import.  The freedom from the dominion of sin of which Paul speaks is the actual possession of every one who is united to Christ.  It is not merely positional victory which every believer has secured (cf. pp. 84ff. [in Barabas]).  When Paul says in Romans 6:14, “Sin shall not have dominion over you,” he is making an affirmation of certainty with respect to every person who is under the reigning power of grace and therefore with respect to every one who is united to Christ. . . . This victory . . . is the once-for-all gift of God’s grace in uniting us to Christ in the virtue of his death and resurrection.  But it is not simply positional, far less is it potential; it is actual.  And because it is actual it is experimental. . . . It is true that there are differing degrees in which the implications of this freedom from the dominion of sin are realized in experience.  In other words, there are differing degrees in which the “reckoning” to which Paul exhorts in Romans 6 is applied and brought to expression in the life and experience of believers.  But the victory over sin is not secured by the “reckoning”; it is secured by virtue of union with Christ [at the time of] . . . initial faith . . . and is therefore the possession of every believer, however tardy may be his advance in the path of progressive sanctification.  Reckoning ourselves to be dead indeed unto sin but alive unto God is not the act of faith whereby victory is achieved; this reckoning is the reflex act and presupposes the deliverance of which Paul speaks in Romans 6:14.  If we fail to take account of this basic and decisive breach with sin, specifically with the rule and power of sin, which occurs when a person is united to Christ in the initial saving response to the gospel, it is an impoverished and distorted view of salvation in Christ that we entertain and our doctrine of sanctification is correspondingly impaired. (pgs. 284-285, Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 4, reviewing So Great Salvation, Barabas)

[12]             Pg. 56, So Great Salvation, Barabas.

[13]             The Keswick affirmation that “there are . . . two kinds of Christians . . . depending upon whether the flesh or the Spirit is in control in their lives” (pg. 54, So Great Salvation, Barabas) is also liable to abuse.  Certainly some Christians are right with God and walking in sweet and conscious fellowship with Him, while others are backslidden.  To affirm, however, that an underclass of Christian exists in whom “sin and failure are still master” and for whom “it is impossible to receive spiritual truth” (pg. 54) is simply false.  Those who cannot know spiritual truth are the unregenerate, not an alleged Christian underclass (1 Corinthians 2:14).  Furthermore, one wonders how any backslider could ever be reclaimed, if for believers who have fallen into sin, it is “impossible” to receive spiritual truth.  Nor does 1 Corinthians 3:1ff. establish that sin is still the master in some Christians—it simply affirms that Corinthian believers were allowing sinful envying and divisiveness in their ranks.  Paul could tell the very same assembly that they had been freed from the dominion of sin and been changed by God a few chapters later in the same letter (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).  First Corinthians 3:1ff. does not by any means establish that sin is still the master of some of the regenerate, or that it is impossible for some true believers to receive spiritual truth.  The idea of a distinct class of Christian, “the ‘carnal’ Christian [who] is . . . characterized  by a walk that is on the same plane as that of the ‘natural’ man . . . [whose] objectives and affections are centered in the same unspiritual sphere as that of the ‘natural’ man” (pgs. 10-12, He That is Spiritual, Lewis Sperry Chafer, rev. ed.), that is, a class of “Christian” that is just like the unregenerate, is a fiction not taught in 1 Corinthians 3 or in any other portion of the Bible.

[14]             The Broadlands Conference followed Hannah W. Smith to affirm:  “Those who love have Him whether they recognize it or not” (pg. 239, The Life that is Life Indeed:  Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.  London:  James Nisbet & Co, 1910), so self-examination concerning whether one had consciously been converted was certainly unnecessary.

[15]             E. g., the Oxford Convention proclaimed as truth:  “Madame Guyon said, ‘Let us have no self-reflective acts’” (pg. 107, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago:  Revell, 1874).  Robert P. Smith stated:  “Let us have no retrospective acts,” since when “we have given up ourselves to a life of full consecration and faith, we need not now be analysing our experience” (pgs. 275, 323, Ibid), an error that helped both Mr. and Mrs. Smith remain without true conversion and which allowed them to adopt and spread the erotic Bridal Baptism heresy.

[16]             E. g., Robert Smith preached “some do not know the hour of their conversion” while setting forth his doctrine of post-conversion Spirit baptism (pg. 251, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago:  Revell, 1874), and testimonies of those who received “the baptism of the Holy Spirit” through “Mr. Smith’s address” but “cannot remember . . . [their] conversion” were considered valuable enough witness to the truth of his doctrine to be printed and publicly distributed in the standard record of the Oxford Convention (pg. 384, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago:  Revell, 1874).  William Boardman likewise downplayed the importance of knowing the time of one’s conversion; see pg. 149, Life and Labours of the Rev. W. E. Boardman, Mrs. Boardman.

[17]             No one would dispute that a believer who has a serious head injury and loses his memory, including that of his conversion experience, is still saved.  Under other limited sets of circumstances it is possible that a genuine convert might not know when he was born again.  For example, a person might, with his whole heart, recognize his lost condition and come to Jesus Christ in repentant faith, but later conclude that he was not really converted, believe he was lost, and therefore seek to repent and believe again to receive pardon.  Such a one might be unsure, looking back, on which occasion he really was saved.  However, in light of the conscious workings of the mind and will associated with repentance and faith, and the radical transformation involved in regeneration, one who has been born again will almost certainly know when this change took place.  It is most unusual that one could repent, be given a new heart and a new nature, pass from being God’s enemy to being His dear child, and receive all the other effects of salvation without knowing about it.  The convert who cannot remember when he came to Christ in repentant faith and was regenerated should be about as rare as the husband who cannot remember or say anything about what happened on his wedding day.  Likewise, the paedobaptist error, afflicting many Reformed churches, that allows people to allegedly have salvation “sealed” to them by infant baptism so that they do not need to know when they were regenerated but can assume that it happened at some point as long as they live a moral life, and other common errors that fill the world with unconverted people who claim they have been regenerated, but do not know when, must be warned of and cried out against—but Barabas provides no such cautions, instead simply making the unqualified statement that people can be regenerated and not know when the new birth and their conversion took place.

[18]             Pg. 124, So Great Salvation, Barabas.

[19]             Pgs. 67-68, So Great Salvation, Barabas.

[20]             Unregenerate Protestants would certainly not be helped by those Higher Life preachers who denied the necessity of being converted and regenerated at a particular moment of time and taught instead the extremely dangerous error of gradual conversion, as was proclaimed, e. g., at the Brighton Convention:  “Some are suddenly converted, others gradually; and perhaps in each case of conversion there has been a blending of both gradual and sudden work.  There has been a [converting] work going on gradually, perhaps through years of our life” (pg. 203, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29^th to June 7^th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875).

The Male and the Female Vote

I don't want to preempt my own post from Wednesday with this little one, so please read yesterday's posting HERE.

Nate Silver has compared, if only women voted and if only men voted, percentages.  You can see the impact of women on the vote.

Does this mean anything scripturally?  Should Christians take this into consideration?

Comparative: Amending the U. S. Constitution and Amending the Bible

Perhaps you are impressed with the founding fathers of the United States and their work on the Constitution. Perhaps you like that document and its outcome for the United States. The United States was no powerhouse when the Constitution was written. They became one with it.  We can't chalk that up only to the Constitution, but it is a significant factor toward the success of the United States.

The founding fathers struggled to complete the Constitution.  It was a very difficult undertaking. The United States itself also wrestled to arrive at the quality of this founding charter in a strenuous ratification process.  The founders decided to make the constitution difficult to amend.  An entire article, Article V, lays out the mechanism.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

The Constitution, of course, was written by men.  It's not divine in nature.  Nevertheless, the founders required monumental percentage of approval and accord to add, subtract, or revise.  For that reason, the United States Constitution has been amended only seventeen times since 1791 and the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

A change in the Constitution resulted from tremendous momentum and astounding assent.  The model for amendment was not a small cadre of scholars or noblesse taking matters into their own hands, deciding what is best for everyone.  Sixty-seven percent must agree a change is even necessary and then seventy-five percent must agree on the change.  This designed arrangement protected the nation from hasty innovation and experimentation.  It demanded exacting deliberation, not some impulse of the moment.

Even with the scarcity of change in the United States Constitution over almost 230 years, I don't like some of the changes.  I don't approve of them.  As a young adult, I talked to a couple of older men who were still living when the women were given the right to vote in 1920.  A very level-headed, intelligent and wise, godly pastor told me that the change in 1920 proceeded out of the instability following World War I.  The men from the war were barely back and informed, when this was kicked through.  You will find zero reference to a woman's vote in the federalist and anti-federalist papers.

Much bad law has arisen from the wording of the fourteenth amendment, "equal protection of the laws," often called the "equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment."  On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States found a right of same-sex marriage in the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution.  Many still see this decision as exceeding judicial authority. It shows, however, how that the wording of a change in 1868, even with a noble goal, brings ramifications in 2015, like some sort of time bomb.

Article V made the U.S. Constitution difficult to amend.  The requirements protected the Constitution and the people of the United States.  An authoritative document such as this was difficult to change, which is one characteristic of conservatism.  If we are to conserve what we have, change should be arduous.  The intricate system of constitutional change also reflects the foundational principle of the consent of the governed.  The people are more likely to keep a law that they believe is the law.  The people established the constitution.  It sprung from the consent of the governed.

Does the Bible come by consent of the governed?  The Bible is God's Word, whether people like it or not.  However, God Himself used His people to canonize scripture, to agree what was in fact God's Word.  The Constitution represented a view of natural law that people could consent to, guided by the law of God written in their hearts.  The Holy Spirit guided the church to the truth.  Our knowledge of sixty-six books comes from the consent of the governed, the Holy Spirit bearing witness in their hearts.

I contend that changes to the translation of scripture should come through a demanding, arduous, and exacting process among churches.  Many translations have emerged from incentives of profitability and niche marketing.  The Bible was the Bible, but as the separate books consolidated into One Book, this came by agreement of the churches.  A small group of men may have been motivated by concerns regarding the adequacy of the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts or by the clarity and accuracy of communication in the English translation, but amendment of scripture should come with great pause and solemnity, marked by widespread agreement.

Churches did not launch the glut of translations into English.  These arose almost exclusively from whatever concerns of a small group detached from church authority.  They were less serious about changing the Bible than our founding fathers were about changing the United States Constitution.

I weary of the talk of a new English translation of the Bible in a generation attached to this culture.  I don't trust it.  I don't trust the people calling for it.  I'd like to see some biblical conviction and obedience first.  Let's be sure and certain.  This is the drive-through-window era, the selfie throng, who are lining up for their next cell phone iteration before the last one is out of its box.

Before we amend, churches who care should agree on an amendment process.  The King James Version itself unfolded from a painstaking carefulness.  If churches thought they needed an update or revision, that should start with the churches that trust and use the King James Version.  I'm not calling for it.  I don't see any momentum to change.  If or since the Holy Spirit is involved in the KJV churches, this lack of desire either results from a quenching of or an alignment with the Holy Spirit. Assuming the latter, the lack of agreement should read as tell-tale.

I'm saying let's take a cue from the founding fathers of the United States.  This is no ordinary country in the history of the world.  Today the people are messing it up.  The King James Version came from an extraordinary providence as well.  We should be thankful.  We shouldn't want to mess it up either.

You Should Consider Very Strongly How Bad A Clinton Administration Will Be

When you go to vote and you consider third party, write-in, not voting at all, or voting for Hillary Clinton, you need to consider how bad that administration will be.  The Democrats aren't going to miss on their Supreme Court justices like Republicans have.  They will get a liberal justice to replace Scalia.  It will be at an all time bad with every justice, because Hillary herself said what she would do. The constitution isn't even coming into play in her decision making.  She said that herself.  Think about the worst justice ever on the Supreme Court and then know that she will appoint one or more justices that will be worse than that.  This will be a hey-day for the court, because the court already has four liberal justices.  You'll be getting 5-4 votes for liberal positions again and again and again. They will not hesitate to tear down the United States.

I read today that Glenn Beck is making a moral case for Hillary Clinton.  There is no moral case there.  Donald Trump is bad, but she is worse.  The only way to win that debate is to lie about it. Trump has operated in a world where he has authority over him.  It might be corrupt authority in many instances, who can be manipulated by money, but he has been under scrutiny.  He hasn't made it easier for himself by running for president.  If he loses, it wouldn't surprise me if he is in court the rest of his life, and even serves prison time.

People called Bill Clinton the first black president.  Hillary Clinton would be the first female president, but she would also be the first homosexual president.  Even if she isn't homosexual, which I suspect that she is, she will hire and appoint more homosexuals than ever.  President Obama has appointed many.  Some of you may not know that the Secretary of the Army is homosexual.  They may as well raise the rainbow flag over the White House, while she is president.  She has as much as said that this is what she will do.

Christians shouldn't live in fear, but it's going to be the all time worst time for Christians in America. She will use her power to take away religious liberty. Count on it.  She will reward her supporters, who hate Christians.  Hate, like with a white hot hatred.  Things will get much worse for Christians across the world, and especially in this country.

The Clintons have enriched themselves from the donor class.  They are pay for play.  They are bought and paid for.  A certain category of wealthy person, as evil as it gets, will get its way with Hillary Clinton.

Never Trump people are saying, "I told you so."  They told what?  A donor class is using its power and money to influence the election.  A Republican establishment is receiving contributions from the same people as Hillary Clinton.  This is how they stay in office, keep their jobs, their situations. Trump is not a part of that establishment.  His supporters are not those people.  Is that what Never Trumpers were telling people?

Judging the 2016 Presidential Election as of Today, October 9

I don't think anyone should vote for Trump because of his godliness or moral purity or even his Christian faith.  This is not how to judge this election. The media, which supports Hillary Clinton at something greater than 90%, released the tape on the weekend to hurt Trump.  It's not news.  Everyone already knew that about Trump.  The tape itself is bad enough, but the media lies about the tape to make it worse than it already is.  They say that Trump was bragging about sexual assault.

The tape is intended to counter the activity of Bill Clinton.  Trump's federal income tax forms are supposed to offset Hillary's emails.  Whenever someone thinks of those two aspects of the Clintons, the tapes and the tax forms are supposed neutralize Trump in the areas where the Clintons are most vulnerable with the people who will decide the election.

I don't think anyone should justify what Trump said on the recording broadcast this weekend. However, it's mostly phony outrage over it, especially from the Clintons.  Heather MacDonald in the City Journal, herself not a Trump supporter, communicates it well (other articles written by women: here, here, here)  I'm saying you can't justify the behavior, but you should also recognize that America isn't against the behavior anymore.  You aren't voting for the Trump conduct when you vote for him.  You are voting for some of what he stands for and against Clinton and the Democrats.  Trump is held accountable by the media for what he says and does, while the media says nothing about the sexual perversion of the Clintons.

You can vote against Hillary by voting for Trump.  Go ahead and hate Trump.  She's worse though. That's how you've got to judge this election.

You can also vote for Trump.  You have reasons. In the latest Wikileak dump, Hillary wants open borders. It didn't even come up in the debate.  The media would support open borders, so they aren't reacting to that.  Trump will do far better on border enforcement.

Besides Trump's immorality, I understand conservative opposition to Trump's trade talk.  The neo-conservatives don't like Trump "isolationism."  The answer on the court question alone in the debate, however, should be enough to vote for him.  Hillary's answer was a nightmare, while Trump's was exactly what you would want to hear if you are a conservative.  Hillary said she wants justices who will support Roe v. Wade and marriage equality.  She said nothing about the constitution.  I don't think she cares if her justices do rely on the constitution to make their decisions. Trump wants justices like Scalia, who will uphold the constitution.  He has provided a very top notch list of conservative justices from which he will choose.

Hillary says she has spent her life working for the good of children, unless they look like this pic.twitter.com/ZllUo3Gb9D

— Andrew King (@aking443) October 10, 2016

Hillary has promised to raise taxes.  She wants healthcare that is more liberal and even worse than Obamacare.  Trump wants to repeal and replace.  While Hillary rejects school choice, Trump supports it.

The Clintons are corrupt.  They sold access for monetary contributions.  She kept a private server to cover for their crimes.  She deleted tens of thousands of emails to destroy evidence.  I'm just scratching the surface.  Multiple books have already been written about all the crime and corruption.

Quite a few have talked about the less-than-acceptable repentance of Trump.  If you wanted to break down his apology, you won't find a scriptural mea culpa.  However, did you hear any admission of wrongdoing about Hillary's part toward the women in the debate audience who her husband abused? She has not apologized, the media doesn't expect her to, and she hasn't been questioned about it.  They don't care.

The Democrats and Hillary Clinton would be happy to have conservative church going people sour on Trump to the extent that they don't vote or write-in.  That will guarantee the election for them.  You would be playing into the Clinton hands, while thinking you were taking some kind of moral stand based upon conscience.  The Clintons will applaud your morality, while they move into the White House.

Donald Trump has been and is a crass human being.  Recognize that and vote for him to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning the election.  She is far worse and in a massive way.  You've got to want her not to be president more than you want him to be president.  Conservative principles are principles that will remain even if Trump wins.  You won't be destroying those by voting for him.  You'll just be making a sensible choice.

*********

If you were to frame the election in one statement, it would be the following tweet today (Monday) by Governor Mike Pence.

Great to be back on the trail in NC! Americans have a choice this election between two candidates and two futures. Let's choose to #MAGA. pic.twitter.com/bBajYTu98j

— Mike Pence (@mike_pence) October 10, 201

Inexpensive Prepaid Cell Phone Plans

In the past on this blog I have reviewed Republic Wireless and FreedomPop.  With Republic Wireless, customers can get unlimited talk and text for only $15 a month.

With FreedomPop, one can get a cell phone plan that is totally free--$0 a month--but has limited minutes.

Let's say, though, that neither of those companies is for you.  That does not mean you are stuck paying extremely high rates with companies such as Verizon.  There are other companies that are worth investigating also.  For instance, TracFone, StraightTalk, and Net10 are worth looking into. TracFone does not charge a monthly bill; instead, customers purchase minutes that can last up to an entire year.  Their motto is "do everything for less."  However, they are not known for superb customer support.  StraghtTalk claims to offer the "same phones, same networks, [but] . . . half the cost."  Net10 also has inexpensive plans.  Any one of these companies is worth considering if you have the kind of high cell phone bill most Americans endure.  You can sign up for or look further into any of these companies by clicking on the banners below.

This post is an excerpt and abridgment of the study here.

TDR

Note: I have affiliate links with the companies above. If you use the banners on this blogpost to sign up for their services, I will receive financial compensation.  I can in good conscience say that there is nothing on this blog post that I would not have said were I not an affiliate of the companies, and I believe that it is appropriate that we both benefit from the information I have put together for your betterment (1 Timothy 5:18).  However, if you are bothered by the fact that I will be compensated if you use these banners to sign up, you can sign up on the webpage without clicking on these banners, and I will get nothing.  If you choose to use the buttons on this webpage, I offer you my sincere thanks.