New blog :

My blog has moved to


Christianity, Thanksgiving, and the Very First Presidential Proclamation

I’d like to share with you the history of our nation’s very first Presidential Proclamation given by George Washington and a short biography of Elias Boudinot, the eminent jurist and statesmen, one of America’s long forgotten “godly” founding fathers and his role in the Thanksgiving celebration we practice today…

Elias Boudinot was born on May 2, 1740 the son of French Huguenots (or Calvinists). His great-grandfather Elias a silversmith had fled to the colonies after the revocation of the edict of Nantes (the edict of protestant toleration) to escape the heinous and bitter persecutions of King Louis XIV (14th)

The young Elias grew up in Philadelphia where he was a neighbor of Benjamin Franklin.

Boudinot’s family later moved to New Jersey where Elias received a classical education, studying religion – and law with Richard Stockton (his mentor and signer of the Declaration of Independence),

In Princeton New Jersey he became a prominent lawyer where his practice flourished.

In 1775 he was elected to his first public office; the New Jersey provincial assembly.

In the early stages of the Revolutionary war Boudinot was active in promoting enlistment – on several occasions he loaned his own money to Field Commanders for the purchase of desperately needed supplies.

During the war he was made a colonel by Congress after George Washington asked for him to be made commissary general – An office which was charged with providing sustenance for prisoners of war and caring for sick and enemy wounded soldiers.

On November 4, 1782 Elias Boudinot was elected our fourth president under the Articles of Confederation. As President, Boudinot signed the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783 (which starts by binding the signers: “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity”) where the British Crown acknowledged the thirteen colonies to be free, independent and sovereign States, a treaty which officially ended of the war, and brought peace with great Britain.

When the United States government as we know it today was formed in 1789, Boudinot served New Jersey in the U.S. House of Representatives for three terms. Not pursuing a fourth, in 1795 President Washington appointed him the Director of the United States Mint, a position he held until his retirement in 1805. Like so many other Huguenots, he put the metallurgic skills he learned from his father and grandfather’s silver smithing to use.

During his term at th US Mint he was known to be scrupulous in his accounting.

Boudinot was the first lawyer admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court.

A devout Presbyterian, Boudinot supported missions and missionary work to Indians. 1816 he founded the American Bible Society where he served as its President.

Boudinot served as a member of the board of trustees for Princeton College (or what was later known as Princeton University) from 1772-1821.

And when Thomas Paine wrote his atheistic book “The Age of Reason” Boudinot wrote a book in response titled “The Age of Revelation”.

Boudinot was honored after a young Cherokee Indian convert nicknamed “Buck Deer” asked for and was given permission to use his name as a compliment to the man responsible for his conversion and education (Boudinot was his sponsor and benefactor), “Buck Deer” was afterward known as Elias Boudinot the man whom he aspired to emulate in his missionary work, who later labored with other missionaries in translating the Bible into the Cherokee tongue.

As for thanksgiving…

On September 25, 1789, two notable things happened; First the very First Federal Congress of the United States sent the Bill of Rights to the state legislatures for ratification.

(Keep in mind this is the same Bill of Rights which contains the 1st amendment which we are told by today’s historical revisionists separates “church and state” or what they really mean “church and God”)

Second, That very same day representative Elias Boudinot of New Jersey introduced, into the United States House of Representatives this resolution that says:

That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.”

the Senate concurred and pass the resolution three days later.

October 3, 1789 President George Washington proclaimed the following:

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and

Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

This resolution (a Christian Thanksgiving Proclamation) became our nation’s very first presidential proclamation…

Is “Social Justice” Justice?

Those who peddle “Social Justice” never will admit that what they really peddle and encourage is societal envy and covetousness. These peddlers convince themselves that those who “have” must have gotten what they “have” unfairly; some injustice after all is implied. So “social justice” in their minds is simply to make what has been ill-gotten – right or what they would deem “justice”.

Unless someone has what they have illegally or unjustly why should the Government be empowered to take from one and give to another; is that really justice?  No, – “Social Justice” is simply envy cloaked in the suit of Marxist redistributive ideology and is not about justice at all. Faithful Christians should reject such an ideology because it encourages the breaking the 10th commandment: You shall not covet. A second reason faithful Christians should reject this ideology is because social covetousness encourages those who have been influenced by it to use the arm of the Government (via their vote) to take from one and give to another (in the name of justice)  which is theft and a breaking of the 8th commandment: You shall not steal.

Therefore Social Justice policies however good intentioned they might be are not really about “justice” at all; they are all smoke and mirrors and actually are about envy and covetousness.

Envy and covetousness though must have the appearance of ethics and justice so that those who peddle it can feel good about what they peddle whether they realize it or not.


Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 1 Corinthians 13:4

A heart at peace gives life to the body, but envy rots the bones. Proverbs 14:30

Good Friday Homily by Peter J. Leithart

I have so much enjoyed this I wanted to share it:


Paul determined to know nothing but Jesus and the cross. Was that enough? To answer that question, we need to answer another: What is the cross?

The cross is the work of the Father, who gave His Son in love for the world; the cross is the work of the Son, who did not cling to equality with God but gave Himself to shameful death; the cross is the work of the Spirit, through whom the Son offers Himself to the Father and who is poured out by the glorified Son. The cross displays the height and the depth and the breadth of eternal Triune love.

The cross is the light of the world; on the cross Jesus is the firmament, mediating between heaven and earth; the cross is the first of the fruit-bearing trees, and on the cross Jesus shines as the bright morning star; on the cross Jesus is sweet incense arising to heaven, and He dies on the cross as True Man to bring the Sabbath rest of God.

Adam fell at a tree, and by a tree he was saved. At a tree Eve was seduced, and through a tree the bride was restored to her husband. At a tree, Satan defeated Adam; on a tree Jesus destroyed the works of the devil. At a tree man died, but by Jesus’ death we live. At a tree God cursed, and through a tree that curse gave way to blessing. God exiled Adam from the tree of life; on a tree the Last Adam endured exile so that we might inherit the earth.

The cross is the tree of knowledge, the tree of judgment, the site of the judgment of this world. The cross is the tree of life, whose cuttings planted along the river of the new Jerusalem produce monthly fruit and leaves for the healing of the nations.

The cross is the tree in the middle of history. It reverses what occurred in the beginning at the tree of Eden, and because of the cross, we are confident the tree of life will flourish through unending ages after the end of the age.

The cross is the wooden ark of Noah, the refuge for all the creatures of the earth, the guarantee of a new covenant of peace and the restoration of Adam. The cross is the ark that carries Jesus, the greater Noah, with all His house, through the deluge and baptism of death to the safety of a new creation.

The cross is the olive tree of Israel on which the true Israel died for the sake of Israel. For generations, Israel worshiped idols under every green tree. Israel cut trees, burned wood for fuel, and shaped the rest into an idol to worship. Now in the last days, idolatrous Israel cut trees, burned wood for fuel, and shaped the rest into a cross. The cross is the climax of the history of Israel, as the leaders of Israel gather to jeer, as their fathers had done, at their long-suffering King.

The cross is the imperial tree, where Jesus is executed as a rebel against empire. It is the tree of Babylon and of Rome and of all principalities and powers that will have no king but Caesar. It is the tree of power that has spawned countless crosses for executing innumerable martyrs. But the cross is also the imperial tree of the Fifth Monarchy, the kingdom of God, which grows to become the chief of all the trees of the forest, a haven for birds of the air and beasts of the field.

The cross is the staff of Moses, which divides the sea and leads Israel dry through it. The cross is the wood thrown into the waters of Marah to turn the bitter waters sweet. The cross is the pole on which Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, as Jesus is lifted up to draw all men to Himself.

The cross is the tree of cursing, for cursed is every man who hangs on a tree. On the tree of cursing hung the chief baker of Egypt; but now bread of life. On the tree of cursing hung the king of Ai and the five kings of the South; but now the king of glory, David’s greater Son. On the tree of cursing hung Haman the enemy who sought to destroy Israel; but now the savior of Israel, One greater than Mordecai. Jesus bears the curse and burden of the covenant to bear the curse away.

The cross is the wooden ark of the new covenant, the throne of the exalted savior, the sealed treasure chest now opened wide to display the gifts of God – Jesus the manna from heaven, Jesus the Eternal Word, Jesus the budding staff. The cross is the ark in exile among Philistines, riding in triumph even in the land of enemies.

Jesus had spoken against the temple, with its panels and pillars made from cedars of Lebanon. He predicted the temple would be chopped and burned, until there was not one stone left on another. The Jews had made the temple into another wood-and-stone idol, and Israel must have her temple, even at the cost of destroying the Lord of the temple. Yet, the cross becomes the new temple, and at Calvary the temple is destroyed to be rebuilt in three days. The cross is the temple of the prophet Ezekiel, from which living water flows out to renew the wilderness and to turn the salt sea fresh.

The cross is the wood on the altar of the world on which is laid the sacrifice to end all sacrifice. The cross is the wood on which Jesus burns in His love for His Father and for His people, the fuel of His ascent in smoke as a sweet-smelling savor. The cross is the wood on the back of Isaac, climbing Moriah with his father Abraham, who believes that the Lord will provide. The cross is the cedar wood burned with scarlet string and hyssop for the water of purification that cleanses from the defilement of death.

The cross is planted on a mountain, and Golgotha is the new Eden, the new Ararat, the new Moriah; it is greater than Sinai, where Yahweh displays His glory and speaks His final word, a better word than the word of Moses; it is greater than Zion, the mountain of the Great King; it is the climactic mount of transfiguration where the Father glorifies His Son. Calvary is the new Carmel, where the fire of God falls from heaven to consume a living twelve-stone altar to deliver twelve tribes, and turn them into living stones. Planted at the top of the world, the cross is a ladder to heaven, angels ascending and descending on the Son of man.

The cross tears Jesus and the veil so that through His separation He might break down the dividing wall that separated Yahweh from his people and Jew from Gentile. The cross stretches embrace the world, reaching to the four corners, the four winds of heaven, the points of the compass, from the sea to the River and from Hamath to the brook of Egypt. It is the cross of reality, the symbol of man, stretching out, as man does, between heaven and earth, distended between past and future, between inside and outside.

The cross is the crux, the crossroads, the twisted knot at the center of reality, to which all previous history led and from which all subsequent history flows. By it we know all reality is cruciform – the love of God, the shape of creation, the labyrinth of human history. Paul determined to know nothing but Christ crucified, but that was enough. The cross was all he knew on earth; but knowing the cross he, and we, know all we need to know.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

The Reformation and the Calvinist roots of “Social Contract Theory” and the Founding of America

The Protestant Reformation and its tremendous influence on the political order of today barely gets mentioned by most contemporary (secular) and anti-christian historians.  The very related ideas like; limited Government, the Rule of Law, and the Social Contract Theory all have their origins and developed from the Reformation and more specifically from Calvinism. Instead, contemporary historians (often purposely) omit the influence of the Reformation and point to men like  Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan, 1651), John Locke (Two Treatises of Government, 1689) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau ( The Social Contract, 1762) as the architects of the modern political order whom they consider much more friendly to their bias worldview.
A  friend on facebook posted that he was reading John Locke ‘s Two Treatises of Government. I mentioned Locke  inherited the ideas of “social contract theory” from men like Samuel Rutherford (Lex, Rex, 1644) (whose book Lex Rex by the way means the “Law is King” as opposed to Rex Lex the “King is the Law”).
What many fail to realize is Locke’s “social contract theory” theory was really nothing new at the time. Social contract theory as well as the closely related resistance theology are direct ideological decedents of the Reformation and specifically of Calvinism.  What many say Locke did in order to make it more palatable to an ever increasing enlightenment skepticism was to remove the biblical aspects of it (unlike Rutherford). Jean Jacques Rousseau did the same.
What is often overlooked is that men like Rutherford, Hobbes, Locke, and later Rousseau picked up their ideas on the  “social contract theory” from early Calvinists thinkers like, George Buchanan (A Dialogue Concerning the Rights of the Crown in Scotland, 1579) , John Ponet (A short treatise of political power, 1556), Christopher Goodman (How Superior Powers Ought to Be Obeyed by Their Subjects, 1558) and Theodore Beza (The Right of Magistrates Over Their Subjects, 1572) Many of these were  contemporaries of the great Scottish Calvinist reformer  John Knox who wrote his own book titled The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, 1556 which argued for “limits” on the authority of the then queen Mary (Mary Queen of Scots).

Arguments for “limits” on the authority, and the rule of law (as opposed to the rule of tyrannical men) developed into a biblically based type of “resistance theology” which was even seen in translations of the Bible at the time. For example  King James I of England who was a ardent believer in the “divine right of kings” had the Authorized King James Version, 1611 commissioned because the very popular Geneva Bible, 1560 (created with the involvement of Knox and Calvin) had marginal notes that were considered subversive  to his authority. For example in Exodus 1:19 where the Hebrew midwives disobey the Pharaoh by refusing to kill male Hebrew children states; “Their disobedience in this was lawful, but their deception is evil”  in Exodus 1:22 when Pharaoh gives the decree, the notes say “When tyrants cannot prevail by deceit, they burst into open rage”.

Very popular books at the time like the French Calvinist (Huguenot) tract (Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, 1579) (translated A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants) and Politica 1603 by the Dutch Calvinist Johannes Althusius espoused this same biblical resistance theology. Ultimately, ideologically you can trace this theology back to the influence of John Calvin‘ the theological giant of the Reformation, in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion 1536 where you have the ideological seeds for it, see  Institutes see Book 4: Chapter 20: Section 31 & 32.

Calvinist thinkers developed social contract theory arguing that the ultimate locus of authority (and all law) was derived from God, who then grants and delegates His authority to the people, who in turn delegate authority to the King to execute true justice in the land as defined by God for the people (the King is an executor) .  If the King turned this around believed and behaved as if the final authority resided in him, turned on the people and God, became a tyrant, the people had the right “under God” to resist his tyrannical authority when he decreed laws that were contrary to God and His revealed will found in in the scripture. This “resistance theology” was derived directly from the scriptures especially from Romans 13 and the Old Testament which gave legitimacy to the people to oppose tyrannical authority and abuses that were so common in that era.

The very related ideas of Social contract theory, resistance theology, the rule of law, and limited government, all come to a full head in 17th century England when King Charles I lost his head in the Cromwellian era after the English civil war . Also, in the American revolutionary era resistance theology was alive and well, you can see it in the clergy’s sermons of the day found here – Also as a side; according to US President John Adams, John Ponet’s work (mentioned above) “A short treatise of political power” contained “all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterward dilated on by Sidney and Locke

You see resistance theology in the thinking of Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the American Declaration of Independence:

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…                                                                                                                                   But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”

Thomas Jefferson then goes into a long laundry list of abuses of King George…

Here is the first US seal that Jefferson proposed (notice the caption “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God”).

Anyway, for a better explanation on the Reformation’s role in the development of the social contract theory see this article:

As a side note Calvinistic resistance theology is spreading like wildfire in China today, here is a link to an article which says:

So when the Chinese house churches first emerged from the rubble of the Cultural Revolution in the 80s and 90s “They began to search what theology will support and inform [them]. They read Luther and said, ‘not him’. So they read Calvin, and they said ‘him, because he has a theology of resistance.’ Luther can’t teach them or inform them how to deal with a government that is opposition.”


Gay Fascists? I say YES they are…

You Say:

“This is a court ruling issue, not a “gay agenda” thing”.

Jake, what kind of an argument is that? Who is taking who to the court?  The whole so-called “human rights” struggle for “equality” as the GLBT community likes to call it and the conservative and Christian resistance is being waged in the courts of LAW!

You speak as though this is some kind of isolated or rare “court ruling” and there’s actually no such thing as a “gay agenda”.   Earth to Mars; it’s gays who are bringing these things to the courts in the first place and it’s not isolated or rare, it’s happening all over the Western world; here are a few more examples (I could provide many, many more if you would like)

Individuals, churches, private businesses and organizations, and religious charitable organizations are being forced against their conscience, they are being dragged into the courts, paying sometimes hefty fines, having their tax exempt status revoked and their religious liberties are being violated:

you say:

I can’t believe we have people believing this conservative garbage: “That’s if the liberal and gay totalitarians don’t kill us and take our children first…”

Gay totalitarians might not want to literally take our children (yet)  but they certainly want to indoctrinate and inculcate them with their worldview:

or take away parental rights over their children:

Sometimes a threat to take away children is literal:

They might not want to “kill” us literally (yet,  but maybe they’ll send us to “re-education centers” or camps instead) but they are moving to take away our rights:

sometimes the threat to kill us is literal:

Whether you want to admit it or not there is a gay agenda:

Which will inevitably end up in the persecution of conservatives and especially of non-compromising traditional and Orthodox Christians.

As I said in my last post, homosexuals are trying to cram their morality down the throats of Conservatives, Christians and their children whether you want to be honest or not. So lets not pretend anymore that GLBT community or even you are totally “tolerant” – no one is.

As for the activist GLBT community, the Christian right has every justification to fear for its civil and religious liberties. You say you want to better understand us, well there you go.


The Constitution and Homosexuality

You can see this full discussion here


Thank you for your respectful response.

Okay you have written a lot here that needs to be addressed, you have raised worldview issues in the area of theology, philosophy, ethics and history. Over the next couple days, I will deal with each and every one of your points one by one, listing point by point each issue. I ask you to respond in like manner to each point, so if I raise POINT 1 I asked you to respond to point 1, to point 2 etc, etc, – this way we can deal with each issue one by one.

You say:

I agree that all laws are ethical in nature, but I disagree that all ethics and morality come from religion. Example: nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly say that it is a sin to have sexual relations with a child. The only prerequisite is that you’re supposed to married first. Yet in our society, any level headed person would tell you that is a very bad thing to do. But by The Bible’s example you might say it is ethical:

okay 3 points:


So we are agreed that all laws are ethical in nature…

You realize what this means; that there is no such thing as ethical or moral neutrality on any issue. Again, if all laws are ethical there is no NEUTRALITY, neutrality is impossible because somebody’s ethics or morality gets encoded into law. Keep this in mind because I‘m going to continue to hammer it – no ethical or moral neutrality when it comes to law. (prove me wrong)

Differences in presupposed ethical value systems will manifest different law systems. For instance the basic assumptions or presuppositions of a Christian majority will manifest in certain kinds of laws (which is why there were sodomy laws in this country until very recently), if there is a Muslim majority, or a Buddhist majority, or secular humanist majority ,or even a homosexual majority, each one respectively both in individuals and majorities will manifest differing ideas on what laws should be. A good contemporary example would be how homosexuals are pushing for the enactment of certain hate crime legislation that would punish the speech of certain individuals, for example see here.

This is important, I want to keep you consistent throughout this discussion, I will continue to come back to it time and again to keep you consistent in your thinking; there is no such thing as NEUTRALITY when it comes to law.

Now given this fact, and you might not realize it, you want to shove your morality (or ethics) down the throat of others, myself included (which is what your discussion on my blog is all about). You want to call us as you put it, the “Party of Tyrannical Christians (PTC)” – I would turn it around and call the “homosexual activist crowd” the party of fascist homosexuals (PFH) who want to en-codify their morality into law, and to dictate Christians on issues of conscience. As an honest Christian I will admit that’s what I’m trying to do, I do it sincerely because I believe that is what is best for a good and just society… your problem is that your just blind to the fact that you and your (PFH) are doing the EXACT SAME THING whether you want to admit it or not!


If ethics and morality don’t come from religion or pseudo-religion as I have defined it, like in secular humanism, then what pray tell does it come from?

Do ethics and morality come from the “majority’s view”?

What if the 51% majority say it’s moral and ethical to eliminate inferior non-Aryan races like they did in Nazi Germany would that make it ethically right just because the majority says so?

So again where can ethics and morality come from? I have an answer, Thomas Jefferson had an answer when he wrote those famous first 2 paragraphs in the Declaration of Independence, do you? Please explain.


As for sexual relations with a child. Now I’m not sure if you’re using old tired arguments that the homosexual crowd likes to make or if you are actually that juvenile in your thinking (I say that respectfully as I can). Let’s do a little logic;

God says:

-no male to male sex
-no female to female sex
-no human to animal sex
-no sex outside of marriage

Do you think that those Biblical laws didn’t apply to children as well as adults?

Keep in mind when God gave His laws to His people the Jews, those laws (unless the distinction was made by God himself in His law) applied to both children and adults. Both Jewish written and oral tradition testify of this simple truth.

Now lets do a little bit of deductive reasoning, I will help you:

-no (adult) male to (child) male sex
-no (adult) female to (child) female sex
-no human (child) to animal sex
-no (adult to child) sex outside of marriage

(Young people could marry with the consent of their parents which would be very rare and probably didn’t exist for children under the age of 12 – Marriage would be the only legitimate sex, period)

Now that logic was easy wasn’t it?

Maybe I’m assuming but I would be careful not to repeat other people’s arguments just because they sound like good arguments (I’ve heard this silly child-sex argument before) think through the arguments logically yourself first so you‘re not self deceived.

So I guess that Christians, Jews, and the Bible are pretty “levelheaded” (your words) after all because the Bible teaches that child sex is not only un-ethical, it is a heinous sin (sanctioning the death penalty) against a holy and righteous God.

By the way, what do you think influenced the West (where did it get its moral presuppositions) that adult-child sex (and fornication, adultery, and homosexuality for that matter) are wrong? I can give you a hint if you’d like…

You realize in some cultures (non-christian) in the ancient world, in certain tribal communities, and in contemporary sub-cultures, practices like pederasty (adult-child sex) and polyamory were and are morally normal and are protected (and thus encouraged) by law.

more to come…