Tuesday, July 13, 2010

The Year of the Bible

Dr. David R. ReaganPDFBy Dr. David R. Reagan

In 1983 the late Dr. Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade, suggested that 1983 be declared "The Year of the Bible." The idea caught on and Congress passed a resolution in October of 1982 in which it declared the Bible to be "The Word of God," and in which it designated 1983 as "The Year of the Bible."


Dr. Bill Bright

President Ronald Reagan implemented the resolution on February 3, 1983 at the annual National Prayer Breakfast. He read a proclamation that stated, in part: "Of the many influences that have shaped the United States of America into a distinctive nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible."

The proclamation proceeded to state that "the Bible and its teachings helped form the basis for the Founding Fathers' abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual, rights which they found implicit in the Bible's teachings of the inherent worth and dignity of each individual. In his informal remarks, the President said, "Can we resolve to reach, learn and try to heed the greatest message ever written, God's Word, and the Holy Bible? Inside its pages lie all the answers to all the problems that man has ever known."

Dr. Bill Bright followed up the President's proclamation by forming a national committee of the nation's top religious leaders representing the Catholic, Jewish and Protestant faiths. This committee, plus regional, state, and city directors influenced scores of governors and mayors to sign their own "1983 Year of the Bible Proclamations." Through everyone's efforts millions of Bibles were distributed and read nationwide that year, and the country was greatly impacted spiritually and morally.

That was 27 years ago.

In 2008 Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga) proposed once again declaring a "Year of the Bible." He introduced a resolution to give that designation to the year 2009. It would be an understatement to say that "all Hell broke loose." It produced a push-back of biblical proportion in the blogosphere, with critics dismissing it as either unconstitutional or a waste of time. Jews in Congress and atheist activists condemned the resolution, while none of the many Democrats in Congress who were Christian would agree to sign on as co-sponsors.

Barney Frank, the homosexual Congressman from Massachusetts, mocked the resolution by asking, "Does that mean 2009 is not the year of the Bible? And what is 2012 the year of? The Quran?" Another Congressman, Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said, "That's an endorsement of religion by the federal government, and we shouldn't be doing that."

What a difference just a few years makes when a society is sliding toward Sodom and Gomorrah.


America's Christian Heritage
[Lamplighter: read (pdf) subscribe]

14 comments:

Expected Imminently said...

Nathan and all,

Looking through reams of information on ‘Emergent’ had been exhausting. Then ‘by chance’ I came across ‘Counselling God’s Way’ and ‘Contending for the Faith’, by Pastor Bob Hoekstra of ‘Living in Christ’ (Calvary Chapel) via the Blue Letter Bible site.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/audio_video/comm_author.cfm?AuthorID=13&l=1

I am so thankful for this man’s ministry of teaching, it has been just what I needed to calm me down, and make certain of my foundations in Christ. I have been checking with the ‘plumbline’ for each course of the building looking out for any stray bits of hay, wood or stubble while making sure each wall is ‘tied in’ to The Word (I’m a Mrs Builder).

For me, trying to understand the ‘Emergent Emergency’ has been like a confused mass of ‘elvers’ in a net, not being able to stop them from slithering around as I try so hard to find of a place to start. (I actually enjoy untangling knotted fishing line that others give up on, but this tangle is beyond me.) Praise The Lord! Today I discovered a new four part message on Bob Hoekstra’s site called ‘The Emerging Church’. I thoroughly recommend it to those who, like me, need a simpler, clearer and less technical way of teaching.

http://www.livinginchrist.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=220&Itemid=37#emergingchurch

son of thunder said...

Thanks EI. I'll check it out.

Toni said...

To Nathan Jones:

Thank you for your comment; however, FilesFromToni Blog does not promote the unbiblical pre-tribulation rapture theory for obvious reasons, many of already which have been set forth here.

Toni

Anonymous said...

Nathan, have you been promoting pre-trib heresy at FilesFromToni? ;-)

Seems like they prefer the unbiblical pre-wrath version instead.

Sigh

rg

Anonymous said...

Pardon my faux pas, apparently Toni promotes just about anything but pre-trib and disp.

I think they're posties but they advertise the pre-wrath Fulfilled Prophecy site, which should be renamed Probably Got it wrong Prophecy coz the ENP1 ain't the Trib.

Seventh-Day Adventism gets a look in too coz Steve Wohlberg has a guest spot. I guess if you think pre-trib is a Satanic deception you're invited to the party.

Never did like them functions.

Yawn.

rg

DrNofog said...

RG,
Apparently Nathan didn't read the ground rules over there:

"We censor opposing opinions as we are solid in our beliefs.
Our minds are like concrete; thoroughly mixed and well set!
;-D

Billy said...

Toni calls my view an "unbiblical pre-tribulation rapture theory".

So I click on his name, a site comes up, and (he/she/or someone running the site) has posted an article in which they say "I am convinced without a doubt that we will see our beloved pets again once they pass from this life."

So pre-trib views are unbiblical yet pets in Heaven isn't?

Glad to see your priorities are in order.

Anonymous said...

Yes I saw that article, Billy.

I skimmed thru the usual pre-trib diatribe and the same old Satan's wrath not God's wrath excuses.

Then my eyes began glazing over.

Just as well they didn't mention Margaret Macdonald. My head would have done a 360 deg turn.

rg

Expected Imminently said...

DrNofog noted -

"We censor opposing opinions as we are solid in our beliefs”.
’Our minds are like concrete; thoroughly mixed and well set!’

Sounds like a severe case of constipation!

It’s true what Toni says, Posties have made their opinions known here, the fact that each and every faulty interpretation they present has been quashed by Scripture and common sense seems to have escaped notice.
MARANATHA!

Anonymous said...

Toni tells Rev White that…. “There is absolutely nothing in Revelation 2:22 that says there is a pre-tribulation rapture. Like all pre-tribulation believers, you are putting words into scripture that simply are not there to make scripture say something it does not say.”

Apparently Rev White’s comment didn’t make it thru either. Lesson – don’t bother leaving a constructive comment.

I wonder if it actually ever crossed her mind that there’s nothing in Revelation that mentions a post-trib rapture and that she’s also assuming one into it.

rg

son of thunder said...

Logic: the liberal's worst enemy.

If someone's opinions are concrete, then that implies they are no longer learning. If they are no longer learning, they are no longer growing. If they are no longer growing, they are dead.

Yeshua said, "Let the dead bury their own dead; you, go and proclaim the Kingdom of God!" - Luke 9:60

Nathan Jones said...

Someone wrote me and suggested I check out Toni's site. It makes that tired and unfounded old claim that the Pre-Tribulation Rapture view is "from Satan" and is "new." Thinking they might like to hear arguments for the other side, I left a comment but was rejected. Silly me trying to reason with a Post-Tribber (Pre-Wrather? Couldn't figure). I shouldn't have interfered with their desire to be martyrs to prove how good they are to God. (This should bring Mitchell in ;).

Anonymous said...

If anyone is interested go over to 5pt.salt blog and read the Israel of God comments. I attempted to make a point with the fact that since there has not been any time in history where the people of the world have had a visible mark needed to buy or sell then the Book of Revelation speaks of future things.
No answer just insults.
Maybe someone else could do a better job.
Pam S.

Anonymous said...

Pam,

that blog is pro-amillennial. The comment by admin that they take a literal view but use the NT to interpret the OT really means that they use that as an excuse to defend their tradition. Their view of the Millennium contradicts the hermeneutic they assert. They spiritualize Rev 20 and in turn do the same to the OT.

Revelation may be progressive, but interpretation should be consistently literal. Prog Revelation only means that new information has been given to understand a literal OT, not to allegorize it.

I note their attempted defence of Limited Atonement as well. They do a great job in getting around the fact that they think God died only for the people that He chose over and above their free will. They just don't say it that way.

I wouldn't argue with them because it will only lead to frustration.

rg