Charlie Wiggens is a very nice man – and conscientious. However, many of his views are un-Scriptural and even anti-Scriptural. For many of his arguments with me, he could give no answer. In my conversations and emails with him, I was convinced he desires to follow Christ, or at least to present the appearance of same. However, he has preconceived notions of social justice that trump what Scripture says and he will not get past this.

When I talked to him about the lies he helped foment to unseat Justice Sanders, the best he could give me was a hedge.

The purpose of my blog is to bring a consistent Biblical perspective to light and expose those who oppose it, especially in the judicial arena. Your interpretation of this as vitriolic is most likely because you disagree with my view.

Though Justice Wiggens claims to be a Christian, he refuses to recognize the source of law in our nation is founded upon the laws of the Holy Bible and he views upholding that foundation in the public arena as being unconstitutional. Jesus Christ said, “If you abide in Me and My words abide in you [spend time with God and know and follow His word], THEN you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” [Joh 8:31-32]

Being a Christian is more than having good feelings for our fellow man and fellowshipping with our brothers from church, be they left or right. I, too, have many friends on the left and the right. We have fun, we joke and we are cordial. However, when anyone attacks the principles in God’s word, I choose to fear God rather than man and I will rise to the defense of Scripture and Biblical principles. If this is vitriolic, I will not apologize.

My friend, we are not going to usher one another into heaven by our good feelings. And Jesus warned that not all who call Him Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. He further warned that most will take the broad way, accepting the kingdom of man, which leads to death. The kingdom of heaven is only obtained by walking the the narrow way.

Your admiration for a friend and fellow church member is admirable. However, your feeling he will represent true justice is sorely misplaced. The argument is not whether he is liberal or conservative, the argument against him is because his views are anti-Scriptural and his foundation is not law but social justice. To have friends who disagree with you politically is commendable. To elevate those who despise the law to positions of power is not. You endorsed Charlie for your feelings and for his feelings. That is a dangerous approach when handing the mantle of law over to an individual.

“It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.” [Psa 118:8]

It is a shame, most Christians depend upon the pulpit for their Biblical knowledge. Or, if they have read the Scriptures through once or twice, they feel content to read a verse or two a day, maybe with a little commentary, such as in “Our Daily Bread” or other such devotional. Few dig in and study the word, daily – for years – for life. When we know so little of Scripture, it is easy to rely upon how we feel rather than trying to view everything in life from God’s perspective. Not that any of us could be perfect in this endeavor, however, we should all be diligent to follow Christ and to abide – to spend time with, to study to understand, to know the word and to follow Him.

May God save our nation,
Dean Isaacson

I just now became aware, thanks to the services of Reputation.com, your January 16 blog re: Charlie Wiggins. In it you described me as a “typical left-leaning liberal!” Had you ever met me or known me by reputation or association, you probably wouldn’t write such a thing. The fact that you wrote it without checking your facts and then published it for all the world to read might in a court of law expose you, were I so inclined, to a charge of libel. The fact is I’m an evangelical Christian, I’m not a lawyer, and I’m typically conservative in my political views. The tone of your blog (I haven’t read your others) was not very Christ-like, in my judgment. You might give some prayerful attention to that.

Most importantly: the point of the article is not whether Dino is competent to handle the job. The fact is Dino has demonstrated his disdain for conservatives this election cycle by distancing himself from conservative principles and even tea-parties. His public voice is and will continue to confuse the people regarding conservative principles. In 2010, we need candidates who are not afraid to articulate conservative principles – who do not water the principles down and do not hide, or cower, behind compassionate rhetoric – majority party or not! Any less, we lose in 2012 and in the long run.