Copyright © 2012 Anno Domini. All Rights Reserved.
anno_domini_2011001007.jpg anno_domini_2011001006.jpg anno_domini_2011001005.jpg anno_domini_2011001004.jpg anno_domini_2011001003.jpg anno_domini_2011002007.jpg

Click here for Alex’s 90 second answer; for the full interview he gave on WKTO 88.9 FM in New Smyrna Beach, FL, click here

Click here for Alex’s 60 second answer; for the full interview he gave on WOCA 1370 AM in Ocala, FL, click here

Click         for Alex’s 90 second answer; for the full interview he gave on IRN/USA News Network, click

Read the tract, What Must I Do to be Saved?

Here’s an excerpt from the

tract, What Must I Do to be Saved?:

“God considers church attendance absolutely mandatory. In fact, He deems those outside of the church as unbelievers (Matthew 18:17), and indeed, to be in the very hands of Satan (1 Corinthians 5:5).

Read the tract, Jehovah’s Witness to the Jehovah’s Witnesses

Read the tract, Christ’s Kingdom Doctrine vs. Two Kingdoms Doctrine

Here’s an excerpt from the book review of Justice Breyer’s Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution:

“[Alexander Hamilton] explains that ‘judiciary encroachments of the legislative authority’ subjects the judiciary to ‘the important constitutional check, which [is] the power of instituting impeachments.’ In other words, judges who usurp Congress’s power to legislate have violated the Good Behavior clause [Article III, section 1] and are therefore liable to impeachment and removal from the bench.”

Read the book review of David Van Drunen’s A Biblical Case for Natural Law

Here’s an excerpt from the book review of RC Sproul’s, et al. Classical Apologetics:

“After considering these ‘proofs,’ at best they have demonstrated that existence exists (ontological), that natural causes exist in this world (cosmological), and that eternal matter has been ordered by a natural designer (teleological). These arguments fall far short of the kind of God they set out prove.

Where should a defense of Christianity begin?

          “As knowledge depends on God’s self-revelation, we must (epistemologically) begin there, making circular reasoning necessary. When arguing over ultimate commitments, as is the nature of apologetics, our ultimate authority must attest to itself. For if authority A is claimed to be the final authority, but authority B is brought forward to justify A, then A really was not the final authority. . . . Circular justification is unavoidable. Linear argumentation, when dealing with ultimate issues, unhelpfully produces an infinite regression of justifying authorities. In the nature of the case, then, one’s final authority must attempt self-justification.

         “But not all circularly reasoned worldviews are cogent. Take the naturalist/empiricist outlook on life. It tells us that all knowledge is based on sense perception. It must seek to justify itself lest it contradict itself—that is, if it proved itself by some other means than sense perception, then clearly not all knowledge is based on sense perception. It is just as clear, however, that no sense perception can justify the claim that all knowledge is based on sense perception. What observation can vindicate this claim? Consequently, far from being self-justifying, the naturalist/empiricist outlook is self-refuting!”


Read the booklet, Review of Wayne Grudem Politics—According to the Bible . . . or Talk Radio?

Read the book, The Will of God

Here’s an excerpt from the book review of Ken Gentry’s The Book of Revelation Made Easy:

"When a marriage covenant has been breached by harlotry, offended spouses can pursue divorce, which entails placing a certificate of divorce in the hand of the offender (Deut. 24:1). Further legal action may be pursued. The legal punishment for this marital unfaithfulness was death by stoning (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:21), requiring the testimony of at least two witnesses (Deut. 17:6; 19:15). The offended spouse, of course, could remarry.

"Ken Gentry’s book presents St. John’s Revelation as dramatizing God pursuing a legal divorce from His harlot-bride, Israel. We can hardly miss this legal component of John’s drama. Judicial terms such as 'witness' and 'judgment' permeate the book; and when he arrives in heaven, the first thing he sees is God sitting on His legal throne (4:2). In fact, Gentry informs us that out of the sixty-two times the word 'throne' is used in the New Testament, forty-seven of those are in the book of Revelation. As Israel was covenantally married to God (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 31:31–32), their idolatries were accounted 'adultery' and 'harlotry' (Jer. 3:9; 5:7; Ezek. 23:37). In the opening vision after John is transported to heaven, he sees the certificate of divorce, the seven-sealed scroll (chs. 4–5). After the requisite testimony of two witnesses (ch. 11), God judges Israel for her harlotry by stoning (16:21). After this judgment, John introduces us to God’s new bride, heavenly New Jerusalem (chs. 21–22), implying the replacement of his previous bride, earthly Old Jerusalem."

Sample these appetizers of the ministry:
If you could have an appointment with the U.S. President, what would you say to him?
Are you ready to meet your Maker? Do you have saving faith?
How should Christians evaluate political Conservatism?
What can we do about the growing social challenges in the United States?
Do you know how to answer the Jehovah’s Witnesses at your door?
Can one be a Christian who does not attend church?
How can judicial legislation occur when it clearly violates the Constitution (see Article I, section 1)? What can we do to stop it?
Not wanting to start with God, the traditional proofs for God’s existence fail.
Are we required to vote for Christians?
Perplexed about the meaning and legitimacy of Natural Law?
Is the book of Revelation too difficult to understand?
Your daughter asks if she can wear a tuxedo to the prom. How should you answer her? A thief breaks into your home at night. Can you protect your family to the point of killing the thief? Crime is rampant and mounting. How exactly does a society confront it? Do you know God’s particular will for these situations?
Confused about the Two Kingdoms Doctrine?