This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program originally aired on July 15, 2021. To listen to the program, please click HERE.
Sam Rohrer: Well, hello and welcome to this Thursday edition of Stand in the Gap today. And this is also our bi-weekly recurring constitutional update focus where we do it on this program with constitutional attorney, author, and speaker David New. And Gary Dull will join me in just a moment as we engage I think a very, very interesting and important topic.
In the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the first words read as you all will recognize, “We the People of the United States.” ‘We’ and the People are capitalized, and as you can hack your proposition in your mind’s eye multiple times larger than any other words in that document, highlighting something extraordinarily significant. Yet, what do the words, We the People, actually mean? Who is the We and who are the People?
Now, in these modern days of truth, suppression, history, revisionism, God rejection, and lawlessness, it’s important to revisit the original words and the meanings lest we perhaps lose forever this experiment in holy freedom and self-government under God. And because in our day, rebels and tyrants which we see every day in high places, some ignorant of the truth but others strategically committed to destroying the truth. We see it quickly destroying the foundation of our Republic, we the people. Our title for today’s program is We the People: What Does it Really Mean?
We’ll consider what these words do not mean, what they originally meant, and why in support the original meaning a convention of states ratified the U.S. Constitution versus separate state assemblies. I trust that you’ll find today’s discussion to be not only interesting but empowering. With that, let me welcome to the program right now, Gary and David. And, Gary, I want to go into this. Thank you publicly for leading the program yesterday, I was in Orlando for some important meetings with some other ministry leaders in regard to how we can more effectively advance the principles of a biblical world view, something we do every day in the program. But if you didn’t hear the program yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, I think you’ll enjoy that and go back and pick it up in our archives.
But before we move into our major emphasis on We the People, Gary and David, I want to get comments from both of you regarding a developing trend that we’ve warned about on this program many times, we said it would happen when God and truth was removed from our law and our judicial system. And we’ve said it many times because God said it, and that is that if God was removed then lawlessness would result and the rule of law would be trampled.
And with that let me share two examples briefly and I want to get your response, David and Gary. Here let me read first from the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, it says, “This constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.” Here, I’m going to share two examples where the constitution as the supreme law of our land is right now being directly violated by some inter-judicial branch and another, you’ll be maybe surprised, by the president of our United States.
Here’s the first example. I’m reading here. On March of this year Texas Collin County District judge, Andrea Thompson ordered, now get to listen carefully to this, that Mariam Ayad, a woman attempting to divorce her husband, Ayad Hashim Latif, forego the usual legal paths and instead… Now get this, submit to arbitration under a Fiqh panel governed by a traditional Muslim group based in Saudi Arabia. Reading on, this is despite that under Sharia a woman’s testimony in divorce proceedings is worth only half of the man’s. Ayad’s attorneys took the case to a Texas appeals court arguing that the Sharia proceedings are in direct conflict with the United States divorce law, that the agreement itself, they added is “unconscionable and an opposition to Texas law as well.” That’s the first example.
The second one. Just yesterday, according to a Reuters News report, I’m quoting here, “In the Biden administration’s latest political move to end what they call racial injustice, the State Department has officially invited,” get this now, “The United Nation’s racialism experts to visit the United States,” the State Department saying, ‘It is in this context that the United States intends to issue a formal standing invitation to all UN experts who report and advice on thematic human rights issues. As a first step we have reached out to offer an official visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism and the UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues.
“‘I also welcome the UN Human Rights Council’s adoption today in Geneva of a resolution to address a systemic racism against Africans and people of African descent in the context of law enforcement here in the United States. I look forward,’ the president is saying, ‘To engaging with the new mechanism to advance racial justice and equity.'” Wow, do you understand what’s happening? David, here’s the first question. In one case a judge sets aside U.S. laws in favor of a hostile foreign-based religious order law, Sharia, and the other, a U.S. president, head of the executive branch invites in a hostile global power, the UN, to investigate matters here on the U.S. soil. How would you describe these two examples, David, in relationship to Article VI, “This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land?”
David New: Well, I think it’s a big mistake for the president to invite the UN to deal with whatever internal issues we have involving race. Racism is a very problem in the United States and it needs to be dealt with and we have dealt with it and we’re going to continue to do so. But what he’s trying to do is he’s trying to storm the flames of racism and in some ways he’s making it worse.
Sam Rohrer: And by so being also undermine the law when he bring on a law, the UN law, right?
David New: Yeah.
Sam Rohrer: I mean, so you’ve got a fundamental problem there. Gary, quickly here for you, from a biblical perspective, God makes it clear that only His moral law and His standards can bring blessings and assure that justice is actually done. What do you see in both of these examples that demonstrate a problem with using God’s standard of justice?
Gary Dull: Well, first of all, Sam, as it relates to the Sharia, our Constitution comes in line of two other great documents that recognize God, that would be the Mayflower Compact and the Declaration of Independence. And then the Constitution we know is founded on biblical principles, therefore Sharia is not found in the Constitution, Sharia is illegal. It is not the law of our land and it is therefore null and void in our country, it finds no place in America.
As it relates to what the president is doing in reaching out to others within the United Nations to try to help us deal with our problem of racism, I think he’s way out of bounds because what he is really doing is inviting globalists and humanists into our country to try to help us to solve a problem that should be solved from a biblical perspective.
Sam Rohrer: Good. Gentlemen, you put a lot into your brief response there. But ladies and gentlemen, big issues, if the Constitution is our supreme law of the land and therefore the rule of law, anytime you undercut it, these two examples being cases, you are actually undermining the rule of law and creating lawlessness. When we come back we’re going to move into, We the People.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Sam Rohrer: Well, welcome back to Stand in the Gap today. I’m Sam Rohrer, accompanied by Gary Dull and our special guest today on this our constitutional update, we do this bi-weekly, that means every other Thursday on this program, take some aspect of the constitution, our basis for the rule of law, the highest document in this nation having been immediately preceded by the Declaration of Independence. And then prior to that the other organic piece of law was the Mayflower Compact, but you put those altogether you have the basis for law in this country.
And so we spend time on this and today we’re dealing with the issue of We the People that begins the Constitution, We the People of the United States. What does that really mean? Well, the war for independence was fought and nearly lost on many fields, but as commander, George Washington, as we know, was much more than a military leader, he was really divinely-inspired. When you read what he wrote you can almost come to no other conclusion.
But Washington wrote, in his general orders said, “We have therefore resolved to conquer or die. Our own country’s honor all call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion and if we now shamefully fail,” this is approaching the constitution, “We shall become infamous to the entire world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the cause and the aid of the Supreme being, God, in whose hands victory is to animate and encourage us to great and noble actions.”
John Adams, in retrospect he said, “But what do you mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war for independence? The revolution was affected before the war began.” The revolution he said was in the minds and the hearts of the people, a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change was in the principles, opinions, sentiment, and affections of the people. He said that was the real American Revolution.
David, before we actually discuss in the next segment and define what is really meant by, We the People, and I just gave a few thoughts from Washington and Adams in regard to that, there is a debate that’s going on now in our culture with multiple groups, it seems, all claiming to speak for the people. We’re using the words We the People, or the people this or the people that, to advance in some cases some very scary agenda. So in general, in this discussion, how is this debate taking shape, this debate around the people and who are the various parties or ideologies that you could identify involved in trying to define this concept, or perhaps, redefine this concept to their own particular advantage?
David New: There are all kinds of groups that are using the phrase We the People for various political purposes. Of course, one of the most obvious is the groups that are opposed to Electoral College. They want a straight popular vote for president. They do not want to have what we have now which is that the president is actually elected by the states. The president is elected 50 times by 50 different states, they want to cut that out. Forget this 270 number on the Electoral College and just have a straight popular vote and they’re claiming We the People is justification for that. And that is incorrect, that’s not what We the People means. It does not mean a straight majority vote as one common mass of people. It does not mean that and that’s the mistake they’re making.
Gary Dull: All right, Dave, you already got into the question that I wanted to ask you but maybe you can elaborate upon it, because sometimes before we illustrate concepts or truths as to what they are it’s helpful to illustrate what those concepts are not. So elaborate upon this, if you would please, to educate our audience on what those words, We the People, really do not mean as it related to the minds and the intents of our framers when they put the Constitution together.
David New: What it basically means is We the People of the states. Right now, the constitution says, “We the People,” but when they made the first draft of the U.S. Constitution that was approved, the Preamble at that time, this is August 6th, 1787. They listed the states in the Preamble. They went from north to south and they were trying to copy the Preamble in the Articles of Confederation. And they had a real reason why they wanted to follow the Articles of Confederation because in the Articles of Confederation, it also lists the states going from north to south. There it says, “We the undersigned delegates of the State of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Georgia.”
And the reason why they did that is they were not supposed to write a new constitution, they were supposed to revise and update and improve the Articles of Confederation. So to help sell the new constitution they tried as much as possible to follow the format and style of the Articles of Confederation, therefore, the first draft of the U.S. Constitution followed the Articles of Confederation and said, “We the people of the states of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, South Carolina and Georgia.” And that that’s the reason it says that. So what happened eventually the states got dropped and we can go into why later, but words… The states got dropped and they just went with the simple, We the People, but it means We the People of the states, it does not mean We the People of 320 million people speaking as one common mass.
Sam Rohrer: And, David, that’s quite a thing. People probably listening to that and saying, “Aren’t I though a people of the United States 320-some million?” But you’re suggesting that those who are listening, we are people, we are citizens, but you’re saying the original context was we are the people of Pennsylvania, we are the people of Massachusetts. Now, here’s a question I want to ask you. When those framers came together, I quoted Washington, I quoted Adams, there’s something that comes to all of their writing. It represents duty. There’s a responsibility.
They’re saying, “Let us,” as Washington said, “Let us therefore rely on the goodness of the Cause,” capital C cause, “And the aid of Supreme being, God, in whose hands victory is to animate and encourage us to great and noble actions.” All of these folks talking like that we’re also one of the people, they were a part of we the people. How were they envisioning themselves in this context? That was quite a unique position to be in.
David New: Yes, it was. But remember now the federal Constitution was to have zero power over religion. The U.S. Constitution is a government of enumerated powers and there is nothing and numerated about religion in the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, secularists have interpreted that to mean that it’s indifferent to God’s existence. Nothing could be further from the truth. What they did is they wanted to make sure that religion stayed in the states. Several states had official government religions, many of the other states had [promisism 00:15:51] as their religion of the state and they wanted to make sure that the federal allies could never interfere with those various actions. And so that’s why the federal government has no power over religion.
Remember, it’s not as one common mass of people as well for another reason. When each state ratifies the Constitution, its individual laws are changed by that ratification. So the laws of Virginia were changed differently than laws of New York, differently than the laws of Maryland. If you make it one common mass of people that means a voter in New York has the power to change the laws of Virginia and vice versa, you cannot do that-
Sam Rohrer: Okay, David-
David New: All majorities within a state can change the laws within that state.
Sam Rohrer: Okay, let me ask you a simple question but it’s complex, but it’s a short question. When we hear the words, We the People, and all who are listening to the program now as citizens of the United States of America when you hear the words, We the People, what you’re saying, what we’re talking about here really is that there really are two classes of we the people, that are we the people… I mean, each person is a, we the people, of our own state and we the people of the United States. Is that what you’re saying? We’re not just we the people in a combined 320 million, we’ve got to think of ourselves also as we the people of our own respective states. Is that what you’re saying?
David New: I wouldn’t say there are two different ways of peoples. I would say it like this, there is one we the people and it’s all of us, but it’s all of us acting as majority’s in states.
Sam Rohrer: Therefore, what you’re saying is that every person listening should be thinking in terms of obligations and duties within their respective states of which they are residents, while at the same time they think of we the people, rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution?
David New: Yes, we the people in the U.S. Constitution means we the people of the states and then you start listing the state.
Sam Rohrer: Okay. All right, ladies and gentlemen, hopefully you’ve got that little bit. It’s we the people, it’s us, it’s the same people, but there are two different jurisdictions. There’s the federal and then there are the respective states. And in the next segment we’ll go more into the importance of building that or the importance of the states as we the people as we put this together further. We’ll be right back.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Sam Rohrer: Well, welcome back to Stand in the Gap and we’ve got a lot to cover here yet but I want to read, if you don’t mind, a very short letter from a new listener who was very generous in her donation from Buffalo, New York. Her name is, Martha. Let me read to you what she says. She said, “Dear, Stand in the Gap team.” She said, “Thank you so very much for producing such wonderful radio programs.” She said, “Your speakers and content are so amazing and helpful.” She said, “I am particularly grateful for your Israel updates you mentioned with Dr. Jimmy DeYoung,” and she said, “And I show others,” I will say, comment on David New our guest today. This one just happened to be on Dr. Jimmy DeYoung in Israel. She said, “And your shows about COVID-19 and the injections.”
Now, listen to this. She said, “I attribute my decision to not receive the jab.” She said in parentheses which I believe was absolutely the correct decision. But she said, To some of your early programs you cared on the subject were so helpful including those featuring Dr. Cahill and Twila Brase.” She said, “I was so glad to hear of the potential problems in advance of the big rollout.” She said, “I think my life has been saved. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.”
Well, that’s an extraordinary thing. And it’s like a lot of letters that we will get, so all of you are listening, perhaps Martha from New York said some things that reflected and which you’re shaking your head and saying, “Yeah, I agree with her.” We want to hear from you just like that so I can share letters like this on the air. And thank you and I thank Martha and thank others for standing with us in prayer and finances. It’s so very, very important, particularly in these days when there’s such a suppression of truth that we need all the help we can both in prayer and finances to boldly proclaim God.
Okay, with that I’m going to go back here. John Adams said following the war for independence that the American Revolution was the result of a transformation as he said, “In the minds and the hearts of the people in regard to their religious sentiments, their duties, and obligations, and not vice-versa.” As Adam’s recalled the radical change in the hearts and the minds of the people we’re in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of, as again he said, “The people.” He said, “That was the real American Revolution.”
David, We’ve described a bit in the last segment, actually quite a bit about We the People, what it does not mean. And we’ve identified some of the contemporary debate and those wishing to hijack We the People to serve their own ends but for now I’d like you to again, define again, We the People, and we did get into the concept here a little bit we were talking during the break that We the People is certainly we the people of the U.S. You talked about there in 20 million U.S. citizens, we’re all citizens of the U.S., but on the other hand every one of us are citizens of our respective states, and you’re talking about that we’re going to build it out more.
But I also raised the question I want you to factor it into the segment somehow, our founders also believed as we do with a biblical worldview that Christians, those who know Christ as our Savior, also are citizens of the kingdom of heaven. There’s actually three kingdoms, fit those together as you define what We the People really does mean.
David New: Let’s take an example of a presidential election. A president today could receive enough electoral votes, 270, and not win the popular vote. That’s because when we elect a president we are electing him as states. That’s what We the People means, we’re electing presidents as states. That’s why you can have enough votes to become president without having the popular vote as president. Trump was an example and Bill Clinton was an example, and various presidents have been elected who did not get the popular vote because We the People in that constitution means we the people of the states.
Now, you have to get the popular vote in each state but not as one common mass of people, it’s in each individual state. So that’s what We the People means and it’s confirmed by Article VII. Notice very clearly, we’re told who makes up the people are who makes up how the Constitution came into force. Look what it says in Article VII, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States.” The federal government exists because the states created it. The states have full sovereignty, less whatever sovereignty they surrendered voluntarily to the federal government. The federal government only has delegated sovereignty, delegated powers, and it all comes from what the states gave up.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States establishes the Constitution. It doesn’t say majority vote, it doesn’t even talk about people voting, it’s the states and within the states how the people vote, that’s how your state will go for the Constitution. And then once nine states get ratified, then it becomes binding upon those nine states and then as each additional state ratifies the constitution it becomes part of the Union.
Gary Dull: Well, David, this is quite an educational program today as it relates to our Constitution and I appreciate you bringing this out for our people. And, folks, if you have any questions on what we are saying because we certainly don’t want to confuse you, but if you have any questions on what we’re saying go ahead and send them into us and we’ll try to clarify them in future programs. But, David, in the original constitution, those words, we the people, were capitalized and they were written many times larger than every other word in the Constitution. Why was this done and why were these letters larger? Why were those words, we the people, capitalized? Is there a significance to that?
David New: Not in the legal sense, but it was done at the very last minute. It was done by a Pennsylvanian, Gouverneur Morris. He is the reason that the Preamble looks the way it does today. And of course he was very hostile to slavery, so the guy that wrote the Preamble and made We the People, the larger letters, is a very much of an anti-slavery person. So it doesn’t mean anything legally though, it doesn’t say, “Oh, We the People means… Oh, it just means all of us together as one compound mass.” No, it means we the people of individual states, we created the federal government. That’s why when you look at the 10th Amendment it says delegated powers. The federal government only has delegated sovereignty and delegated powers because all of it came from what the states surrendered. The states created the federal government and they gave it some of their sovereignty to make the federal government in existence.
Sam Rohrer: And, David, unfortunately, the states have given up so much of their rights in exchange for federal government money or other things that they have voluntarily made themselves in many cases pretty impotent in my opinion and I can say as someone who’s been in the Pennsylvania government for a long time, much of the power has actually been given up, bribed away, accepted on behalf of federal money. So you may or may not have a comment but I want you to go back to what I phrased to your earlier. Build aside, citizens, we the people of the United States are citizens of the United States. We the people listening here are also citizens of their respective states. But for those who are Christians we are also citizens of a heavenly kingdom. The Bible tells us that and our founders, most of them actually looked at that too. Can you fill in some more of that information on that concept? It’s important to understand this.
David New: Philippians 3:20 says for our conversation is in heaven. The word conversation here is from the Greek word which means politics. Our politics is in heaven. We are citizens first of the kingdom of heaven. Before the 14th Amendment you were a citizen of a state, second, and then you were a citizen of the federal government. So before the 14th Amendment you were a citizen of heaven first. If you were a Christian a citizen of your state second, and then a citizen of the federal government, third.
If you look at the 14th Amendment it’s the exact opposite. The 14th Amendment changed citizenship. So if you’re a Christian you’re a citizen of heaven first then you’re a citizen of the federal government and then, third, you become a citizen of your state. And why was that done? Why did they write a sentence that to us looks rather obviously true? Because before the 14th Amendment you were a citizen of your state before you were a citizen of the federal government and it had to be that way, especially, there were many reasons but one of them was slaves.
There had to be a way to make sure that slaves could not claim rights under the U.S. Constitution, so the state laws define citizenship and that excluded slaves, which means they could not claim anything under the Bill of Rights, under the U.S. Bill of Rights. They weren’t citizens of their states, therefore they couldn’t be citizens of the United States. But thank heavens, the 13th Amendment came along, reversed slavery and nobody’s going to be a slave, and then the 14th Amendment defines that regardless of your color you are now a citizen of the United States first and a citizen of your state, second.
Sam Rohrer: All right, ladies and gentlemen, if you’re a believer, citizen of the kingdom of heaven, you’re really citizen of your own individual state, and then your citizen of the United States. Important, important. When we come back we’re going to talk about why there was a convention that ratified the Constitution.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
In this final segment we’re going to talk a little bit about the process, and that was how the ratification took place. We’ve already talked about some of that with David, but before we conclude the program I am going to ask, Gary, in a while just a bit of discussion relative to at the end of the day, what difference does this make. Now, to this point, this has been somewhat academic in our discussion. It has been somewhat certainly legal because it talks about our law and it talks about the constitution. There’s some purpose within it, that was Washington’s statement, then Adam’s statement.
But at the end of the day, it comes right down to as we’re talking, we the people and its aspect of citizenship and said, “If you’re a believer, you have citizenship in heaven, you’re a citizen of your respective state, and we’re also a citizen of these United States. So I’m going to ask the question, what difference does that make? How should that affect your life? We’ll conclude with that.
David, the process itself that led up to the ratification of the constitution is also instructional. It was unique and like each word in the Declaration and the Constitution, everything means something. And the actual and symbolic nature of the process reflecting We the People and the states, which we’ve talked so much about, that wasn’t accidental either. In the confirmation process it also augments and supports the concept of We the People as we have been describing people of the respective states first, why wasn’t the Constitution submitted for instance to the states for the ratification but actually took place in a convention?
David New: Yes, it says the Ratification of the Conventions of nine States. So it was sent to the states. But it was not sent to the state legislatures, it was sent to conventions. And, by the way, if you want to know why the word God does not appear in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, it is because it does not appear in the Preamble to the Articles of Confederation. Now, the reason why conventions were used was this, if you send it to a state legislature, a state legislature cannot bind all future state legislatures. Each session that comes along can undo anything that was done in the past. So if you gave it to the state legislatures to ratify the constitution, then a future state legislature cannot do it. To prevent that they gave it and they required conventions to be held.
Soit l’aborder ou sortir de mon lit fp8.
Soudain entendu un son zhang ju est bon.
Soyez efficace en meilleur viagra couple, de la manière.
Soyez prudent achat kamagra france sur Internet et en voyage.
https://www.cialispascherfr24.com/achat-cialis-canada/Spécial spaghetti maintenant disponible.
Stéroïdes 5 faits, stéroïdes 5 exemples.
The second reason they did this was for the clergy. The clergy were not allowed to participate in the state legislature, they couldn’t run for office because there were very influential people. They had a built-in advantage because they had an audience every Sunday. Now, they wanted the clergy when they wrote the Constitution to get behind the constitution, they were one of the key groups that got this thing ratified. To make sure that the clergy could participate they took it away from the state legislators and gave it to conventions and that allowed the clergy to vote for and support the constitution and the vast majority of them did.
Sam Rohrer: That is excellent, Dave, I bet you that piece of information right there was news to a lot of folks who are listening today. But again, ladies and gentlemen, we reflect back on why we are where we are and we consider all of these various steps that we’re talking about in these incidents, and indeed events that took place. Isn’t it incredible that we are here? It’s incredible that God actually heard the prayers of Governor Winthrop that this would be a shining city on a hill, the pilgrims and the Puritans that this would become a new Jerusalem, a new Israel, a light to the world. That a William Penn Holy Experiment in freedom, these prayers, these goals, these visions, taking place over, well, many decades that it actually came about as nothing short of God’s blessing.
And that really brings it down to the point of, we’re here, all right? So what obligations do we have? Gary, let me go to you as I said I would do at the beginning of this segment. But one of the more significant principles I think that we’ve uncovered in this discussion is citizenship. Citizenship of heaven, in heaven for those who are true believers, citizenship of our respective states which we know to be a matter of law, and citizenships of the United States as We the People_ in our U.S. Constitution. So the logical question, we encourage always to say, so what difference does it make? Gary, what difference should this understanding make to the person who is listening who is a God fearer and one who wants to obey what God says and also obey the law of the land? How do you put things together?
Gary Dull: Well, that concept of the tri-fold citizenship I think is very interesting and I should say significant for those of us who are Christians particularly to understand we are citizens of heaven, citizens of a state, citizens of our nation. Of course, we could even break that down, citizens of our county, citizens of our community, whatever the case may be. But I want to focus on the concept of our citizenship in heaven because I think that that actually lays the foundation for how we should respond to our citizenship in the state and our citizenship in our nation.
The Bible tells us in the Book of Philippians 3:20, that our conversation, that is our citizenship is in heaven. And then you go to the Book of Colossians 3:2, it says, “Set your affection on things above not on things of the earth.” Now, when you study the concept of citizenship, one of the things that we are to recognize is that when we are citizens of this state or citizens of this country, we are to do everything that we can to uphold the law of the state or the nation in which we live. But as believers, we are first and foremost citizens of heaven. And so our responsibility as citizens of heaven is to bring the standards of heaven to the earth, to our state, to our nation, so that what is lived out within our state and our nation reflects heavenly values.
And I think that that’s something, Sam, that many people just fail to understand. I mean, this concept of citizenship is significant. And the word of God teaches us that God Himself places us in the nation that He wants us to be in so that we might reflect Him there. So as citizens of whatever state, whatever nation we are, those of us as Christians are to do what we can, not only to uphold and obey the laws of the land as it were, but to bring into play the principles of heaven so that those principles might be lived out in our state and in our nation. That would make a big difference in the way any state or a nation would go.
Sam Rohrer: Gary, absolutely. And ladies and gentlemen, if I could encourage you right now, we are in the midst of a series of programs that we’re doing every Monday. We’re calling it 10 Principles to National Renewal. They are biblical principles but they are principles identified by our founders and incorporated. We’ve dealt with a couple of them, the necessity of integrity, a wholeness to truth, seeking of truth, then understanding the nature and the role of God. We dealt with that on Monday of this week. This coming Monday we’ll deal with the next one, understanding the nature and the role of man.
These are things that our founders including William Penn and others laid down. They took biblical principles because they understood their citizenship was in heaven first and then they said, “Based on that, what can we bring to bear in this civil society, this new nation, our states, and this new country, the United States? What can we bring to bear that would allow God to bless this nation with freedom?”
And that’s what we’re walking through. And that’s Gary said, what difference does it make? It makes all the difference in the world if you believe your citizenship starts first in heaven, where that’s where your rights come from, and then the duties that come from that and the same then happens to our states and our federal government, only fits when you understand the biblical picture. So I encourage you to go to our website, standinthegapradio.com and you begin listening to these programs, 10 Principles to National Renewal.
David New, thanks for being with us today. Gary, thanks for being here, great information. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being a part of the program today. Join us again faithfully in prayer, and partnering in finances so that we can continue to put forward this program.
Recent Comments