Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

The battle against this atrocity begins with identifying it correctly. By calling it "abortion," we've already acquiesced to the opposition's terminology. Look up "abortion" and "miscarriage" in any dictionary. A miscarriage is an abortion. What doctors (and parents) do to infants in the womb is infanticide. Had Roe v. Wade been waged over infanticide rather than abortion, it would have never made it to the court room. In fact, by employing the word "abortion," Roe v. Wade was won before it ever got to court.

The Greek word "brephos" employed in the New Testament for infants already born is the same word used for infants in the womb  (Luke 2:12 and Luke 1:41), without specifying the precise moment they became a "brephos." Therefore, our only option is to then accept that they became such at conception. Thus, intentionally killing a brephos at any point is "brephocide" or, more properly, infanticide.


The point being, we Christians need to stop using the non-Christians' watered-down, politically correct terms such as "abortion" and "gay." It's infanticide and sodomy. There is no power in the former terms against evil and our first mistake is in acquiescing to the ungodly's terminology.

Listen to Part 1 of "Word Wars & Captive Thoughts" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/tapelist.php#T849.

17 hours, 45 minutes ago on NY House Passes Shooting Full-Term Babies in the Heart with Poison to Abort

Reply

@Spookycoop Others will be better equipped to answer your first question.


Rather than being an argument against theonomy (God rule vs. autonomy or self rule), your second question is argument for theonomy. The Salem Witch Trials only go to demonstrate (as does today's government) what can come of any deviation from Yahweh's perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11).


Also, it is impossible for any of us to escape theonomy or theocracy.

When one understands that the principal means by which we keep the First Commandment is by observing Yahweh's other moral laws and that idolatry is not so much about statues as it is statutes, it becomes clear that all governments are theocratic, serving either the true God or some false god, demonstrated by what laws they keep and consider the supreme law of the land.

Furthermore, all non-existent false gods (1Corinthians 8:4-6) always have been and always will represent we the people in one form or another. (See our blog article "Could YOU be a Disciple of Baal and Not Know It?" at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/could-you-be-a-disciple-of-baal-and-not-know-it/.)

"...There is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE.

"People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?..."

For more, see online Chapter 3 "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html.

I hope this proves helpful.

1 month ago on Theonomy is dead.

Reply

@ElyseRoeslerColeman @GaryLincoln @Christianciv @lvlife 

"...Most Christians are unaware that Yahweh’s moral laws existed long before their codification at Mt. Sinai – although this should be self-evident. Unlike man, Yahweh is not fickle. Because His morality is the same yesterday, today, and forever, His moral laws have not changed one jot or one tittle. The Bible provides pre-Sinai evidence that Yahweh’s laws were in existence and, therefore, could not have been added at Mt. Sinai. For example, over 500 years prior to Moses, Abraham kept the commandments, statutes, and laws later codified by Moses:

'…Abraham obeyed my [Yahweh’s] voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.' (Genesis 26:5)...."
Excerpted from "Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html.

1 month, 3 weeks ago on Hey theonomy, what about Luke 16:16?

Reply

@ElyseRoeslerColeman Well said!


"...An antinomian (a lawless or law-rejecting) Christian is at best an oxymoron. According to Jude, antinomians deny both Yahweh and Jesus by their unscriptural theology:

'Beloved, … I … write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.' (Jude 1:3-4)

"Where the King James translated asélgeian as “lasciviousness,” the New American Standard Bible translates it as “licentiousness.” In his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster defined “licentiousness” as “excessive indulgence of liberty; contempt of the just restraints of law….”10 By their rejection of His law, antinomians turn Yahweh’s grace into licentiousness; they are humanists dressed in Christian attire. Without Yahweh’s moral compass, every man is a law unto himself. 

"The antithesis of Yahweh’s law is not grace, but lawlessness and, therefore, sin. Yahweh’s laws are meant to keep us from sinning; grace is the solution after we have sinned. Puritan minister Samuel Bolton (1606-1654) wrote, “The law sends us to the gospel for our justification; the gospel sends us to the law to frame our way of life.”...."

For more, see free online book "Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html.

1 month, 3 weeks ago on Hey theonomy, what about Luke 16:16?

Reply

Key to this issue is understanding that the Greek word "nomos" translated "law" in the New Testament is used to refer to a number of different laws:


"...Those who promote the idea that Yahweh’s laws are no longer pertinent under the New Covenant often refer to Paul’s epistle to the Galatians:

'But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.' (Galatians 3:23-25)

"Antinomians are quick to declare, “See, the law is no longer valid today!” Which law? The Greek word nomos, from which the New Testament word “law” is translated, has a variety of New Testament applications:

  1. Any law whatsoever.
  2. The law of Jesus.
  3. The entire Old Testament, including the Psalms, Proverbs, and Prophets.
  4. The Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament).
  5. The Mosaic Covenant, including its sacrificial and ceremonial laws.
  6. The moral laws of Yahweh as contained in His commandments, statutes, and judgments.

"Christians who teach Yahweh’s laws are no longer relevant usually choose some combination of 5 and 6. Seldom do they consider the other options because, in most instances, no one has taught them other options exist...." (# 5 is what's being referred to in both Luke 16:16 and Galatians 3:23-25.)

For more, see free online book "Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant" at  http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html.

1 month, 3 weeks ago on Hey theonomy, what about Luke 16:16?

Reply

@LeeCarter @TedRWeiland @DonHawkes I thought by repeating it to you it would be obvious.


How can Christians be the genesis for the Muslims COMING here for having failed to evangelize them AFTER they're already here?

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@LeeCarter @TedRWeiland @DonHawkes It's so illogical, I had to repeat to make sure that what's you were saying. Thanks for confirming it for me.

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@LeeCarter @TedRWeiland @DonHawkes Go back and read what I wrote and it's quite clear that I stated you falsely accused me (that's a sin) BECAUSE you accused me of wanting to install myself as king.


Thank you for finally acknowledging that this was a false accusation.


Now, let's see if I have this right: Muslims are here in America BECAUSE Christians are not evangelizing them AFTER they get here. Huh!

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@LeeCarter @TedRWeiland @JeffRoss So what you're really saying is the Israelites' failure to keep Yahweh's perfect law and altogether righteous judgments--what you've now defamed as "their poor .. document"--now justifies our defiance of the same? Hmm! I wonder what Yahweh thinks of that?

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@LeeCarter @TedRWeiland @DonHawkes 

President John Adams wrote that: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

This is an accurate quotation. However, it's often employed by Christians as if Adams was referring to Christianity and Yahweh's morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. This is untrue. Adams emphasized that the same “moral liberty resides in Hindoos and Mohametans, as well as in Christians” (John Adams, Letter no. 13 to John Taylor (1814), in “Works of John Adams,” 6:474.)

He once asked, “Where is to be found theology more orthodox or phylosophy [sic] more profound than in the introduction to the [Hindu] Shast[r]a?” (John Adams, December 25, 1813, letter to Jefferson, in “Adams-Jefferson Letters,” 2:412.)

According to Adams, “religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society.” (August 28, 1811, letter to Benjamin Rush, in “Works of John Adams,” 9:636.)

Any nation's constitution and government benefits from moral Christian citizens, even those nations whose constitution are not based upon Yahweh's morality as found in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9) - such as the United States of America. However, when such constitutions are not based upon Yahweh's law, it is inevitable that such nations will become more and more immoral and corrupt, being they do not have a Biblical standard to fall back upon. Case in point, the United States of America today.

For more regarding the late 1700 founders' religious persuasions, see Dr. Albert Mohler's interview with Dr. Gregg Frazer at http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/09/10/what-did-americas-founders-really-believe-a-conversation-with-historian-gregg-frazer-transcript/. Dr. Frazer proves from the key founders' own writings that they were neither Deists in the purest sense of the word, nor were they Christians in the Biblical sense of the word. Instead, they were Theistic Rationalists.

Dr. Mohler is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Frazer is Professor of History of the Master's College in California.

 
 

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@LeeCarter @TedRWeiland @DonHawkes Lee, did you or did you not accuse me of wanting to set myself up as King?


And please quote me where I accused you of sin because you disagreed with me. Either provide a quotation proving this accusation or admit this is another instance of misrepresenting me.


As for question #8 of our survey: 

Option #1: The U.S. Constitution promotes exclusive
        worship of Yahweh.
Option #2: The U.S. Constitution allows for and therefore
          promotes polytheism and idolatry.


Additional questions for you to answer, Lee:


What's the genesis of today's proliferation of Islam here in America: 1) The 17th-century' Colonial Constitutions that were established, first and foremost, on the First Commandment, or 2) The First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause?


And, by the way, why should the States be given the authority for something Yahweh has already determined? If you think that's a good idea then you must also believe it's fine for either the State's supreme courts to determine the validity of same-sex marriages and infanticide.

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@LeeCarter @TedRWeiland @DonHawkes So says Lee who has reduced his arguments to presumption (Proverbs 13:10, NASB) and pejorative false accusations, for which he's yet to repent of.


Don, I assure you that the ten questions were deliberated over very carefully, It's understandable that most constitutionalists object to them being reduced to an either/or query, but I assure you I justify doing so in "BL vs. USC," the "Primer" of which you'll receive a free copy of if you participate in the survey.

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@paroikos "...Yahweh never abdicated His throne. He is as much King now as He was at the beginning of creation. As perpetual King, the kingdom He rules over is perpetual.

'Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.' (Psalm 145:13)

'To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.' (Jude 1:25)

"Many Christians reject these inescapable facts of Yahweh’s sovereignty, believing He has no kingdom at present or that His kingdom is limited to heaven. They lift their favorite proof text from John 18:

'Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.' (John 18:36)

"The exact same Greek phrase ek toú kósmou, translated “not of this world,” is used several times and is explained in the preceding chapter:

'I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world…. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.' (John 17:14-18)

"Clearly ek toú kósmou does not mean Yahweh’s kingdom exists only in heaven. Although it is certainly true that His kingdom is not of this world, this does not mean that He does not intend for it to be in this world. His statement in John 18 is better understood to mean that His kingdom is nothing like the other kingdoms in this world. As someone once said, “The only kingdom that will prevail in this world is the kingdom that is not of this world.”...

"The teaching that Yahweh’s kingdom does not exist on earth or that Yahweh has abandoned the earth to His enemies is not new to this age:

'…Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? For they say, YHWH seest us not; YHWH hath forsaken the earth.' (Ezekiel 8:12)

"Christians who reject Yahweh’s extant kingdom here on earth are looking for a future king and a future kingdom. This erroneous theology has all but destroyed Yahweh’s kingdom, at least in practice, here on earth. It is certainly one of the principal reasons why the antichrists and non-Christians rule today. This anti-kingdom theology has also been one of the prime contributors to today’s fulfillment of Jesus’ warning in Matthew 5:

'Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.' (Matthew 5:13)...."
For more, see free online book "Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html.

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@DonHawkes @TedRWeiland Don, thank you for your kind response. You might be interested in taking our 10-question Constitution Survey, by which you'll receive a complimentary copy of the 85-page "Primer" of the 565-page "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective," at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ConstitutionSurvey.html


I hope you do, I'd love to send you a copy.


Blessings!

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@LeeCarter @TedRWeiland @JeffRoss I don't think you and I agree (at least not in practical sense) that Yahweh is the only legislator, per Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12. If you did, you would denounce anything (including the Constitution) that rejects His law as the supreme law of the land.

The 18th-century founders' violations of Yahweh's law were of both commission and omission. By commission in that there's hardly and Article or Amendment that's not antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh's sovereignty and morality.


However, even if this were not true, their sins of omission alone sent America to the precipice of moral depravity and destruction she finds herself teetering on:


"...3. Every problem America faces today can be traced back to the fact that the framers failed to expressly establish a government upon Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. (Would infanticide and sodomy be tolerated, let alone financed by the government, if Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments were the law of the land? Would Islam be a looming threat to our peace and security if the First Amendment had been replaced with the First Commandment? Would Americans be in nearly as much debt if usury had been outlawed as a form of theft? Would crime be as rampant if “cruel and unusual punishment” had not been outlawed and criminals were instead punished with Yahweh’s altogether righteous judgments? Would we be on the fiscal cliff if we were taxed with a flat increase tax rather than a graduated income tax?)..." For more, see blog article "5 Reasons the Constitution is Our Cutting-Edge Issue" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/index.html.


You arrogantly presume (as if you are omniscient God who knows my heart and all I've written) that I do not have an answer to your question. The answer can be found in "A Biblical Constitution," which is a suggested biblical replacement for the Preamble and the first three Articles of the U.S. Constitution, at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/biblicalConstitution.html.


After reading this, I'll be looking for your public repentance for suggesting that I want to be King.

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@LeeCarter @TedRWeiland No solutions, Lee!?! Where have you been throughout this discussion? I've offered Yahweh's perfect triune moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments) as the solution--the same as did America's true 17th-century Christian forbears:


"Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Yahweh my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as Yahweh our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?" (Deuteronomy 4:5-8)


See also Deuteronomy 28:1-14, Psalm 19:7-11, etc.


"...Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835:

'They [the 17th-century Colonials] exercised the rights of sovereignty; they named their magistrates, concluded peace or declared war, made police regulations, and enacted laws as if their allegiance was due only to God. Nothing can be more curious and, at the same time more instructive, than the legislation of that period; it is there that the solution of the great social problem which the United States now presents to the world is to be found [in perfect fulfillment of Deuteronomy 4:5-8].
'Amongst these documents we shall notice, as especially characteristic, the code of laws promulgated by the little State of Connecticut in 1650. The legislators of Connecticut begin with the penal laws, and … they borrow their provisions from the text of Holy Writ ... copied verbatim from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy....'23
"America was exalted in the eyes of the world because of her applied righteousness, embodied in Yahweh’s perfect law. Since 1788, when the United States of America, as a nation, stopped following Yahweh’s laws and began following the laws of WE THE PEOPLE, our legislation has ceased providing righteous instruction to others. Instead, the rest of the world now holds America in disdain. If America hopes to regain her favored status in the eyes of the world, she must return to her original Constitution...." (For more, see online Chapter 3 "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html.)

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@LeeCarter @TedRWeiland @JeffRoss 

"...Even if the Constitution was intended to provide “a procedural morality, not a substantive morality,” this does not negate the specific substantive instances (in nearly every article and amendment) in which the Constitution unequivocally dictates Biblically unlawful procedure for the federal government and the states, as demonstrated in BL vs. USC.4 Consequently, the entire book addresses Rushdoony’s point and demonstrates time and again that his point cannot be employed to dismiss these numerous substantive instances in which the Constitution is clearly unbiblical, antinomian, and non-Christian in its “procedural morality.”


"You [Mr. Selbrede] wrote, “It’s no surprise that Weiland doesn’t find a substantive morality in the Constitution.” What I find surprising is that two pronomians such as yourselves cannot see and/or admit the substantive immorality in the Constitution...."

For more, see "AN OPEN RESPONSE TO MARTIN SELBREDE AND ARCHIE JONES’ “BOOK REVIEW” OF: Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/OpenLetterResponseFrame.html.

This discussion has nothing to do with forcing conversion upon anyone (an impossibility to begin with). It's a discussion regarding whose law fickle finite man is best government by: Finite man's fickle law (Matthew 15:6-9, including the late 18th-century founders' Enlightenment and Masonic concepts)  or Yahweh's immutable and perfect moral law (Psalm 19:7-11). I choose the latter, you choose the former. It's that simple.


As for your pejorative Ninth Commandment-violating false accusation that I want to be king is best answered by Nehemiah 6:8.

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@Don Beheler @TedRWeiland @JeffRoss Don, as ambassadors of Christ's kingdom, our task is to advance His kingdom based upon His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11) instead of man's (Matthew 15:6-9) everywhere we possibly can (2 Corinthians 10:4-6, etc.) whether it seems achievable or not. However, I believe it is achievable. See blog article "10 Reasons the Kingdom Here on Earth Isn't Mission Impossible" at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/10-reasons-the-kingdom-here-on-earth-isnt-mission-impossible/.

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@LeeCarter @TedRWeiland So WHAT if Rushdoony was a proponent of the Constitution. There was only one teacher who had perfect doctrine who ever walked the face of the earth. Regrettably, Rushdoony was wrong about the Constitution, as is anyone who promotes the biblically seditious Constitution as any part of the supreme law, which then makes it's creator (aka: its Enlightenment and Masonic framers, posing as WE THE PEOPLE) the supreme god of the same system. See online Chapter 3 "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html.

It's essentially the same double mindedness as found in the Israelites on Mt. Carmel with Elijah. See blog article "Today's Mt. Carmel Christians" at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/todays-mount-carmel-christians/ and "Could You be a Disciple of Baal and Not Know It?" at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/could-you-be-a-disciple-of-baal-and-not-know-it/. Today's We the Peopleism is what today we identify as humanism, which is just a contemporary form of Baalism.


Your argument for procedural vs. substantive morality (which I'm very familiar with) and that you keep claiming the Constitution follows biblical law only goes to prove that idols die hard (especially this idol and especially with Christians). In Acts 19, the Ephesians cried out for two solid hours "Great is Dinah of the Ephesians!" Well, Americans (ironically and tragically led by Christians) have been crying out for 226 YEARS "Great is the Constitution of the Americans!" Keep mind that idolatry is not so much about statues as it is statutes, as in what they consider the supreme law of the land. See online Chapter 9 "Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt9.html.

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@JeffRoss @TedRWeiland Jeff, thanks for the recommendation--and a good one it is. The second half of "Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism" has been made into a book of its own entitled "Conspiracy in Philadelphia: The Broken Covenant of the U.S. Constitution," which we happen to carry on our Store Page at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/Store.html.

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@Don Beheler I agree with you, especially your last sentence. But making known to future generations the Christian influence upon our nation begins with being truthful to them. They desperately need to know the Christian and Biblical influence upon America's true 17TH-CENTURY founders who came to America and established governments of by, and for God, based upon His immutable moral law, as contrasted with the humanistic government of, by, and for the people, based upon Enlightenment and Masonic concepts. We need to quit lying to them about the latter. 


For a contrast between these two antipodal governments, see blog article "375 Years Later: Constitution vs. Constitution" at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/375-years-later-constitution-vs-constitution/.


Regardless how much we Christians want the late 18th-century founders to be "our" guys, they weren't. See Dr. Albert Mohler's interview with Dr. Gregg Frazer at http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/09/10/what-did-americas-founders-really-believe-a-conversation-with-historian-gregg-frazer-transcript/. (Dr. Mohler is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Frazer is Professor of History of the Master's College in California.) After reading this transcript, ask yourself what kind of government such men would create and you'll know why we have the Godless, Christless, lawless Constitution we do today and why America finds herself teetering on the chasm of moral depravity and destruction.

Regardless how much we want the Constitution to be "our" document, it isn't. See free online book "Bible law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective," in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible, at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html.

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@LeeCarter @TedRWeiland Lee my arguments were in response to YOUR claim that the Constitution was biblically based, a Republic based upon the Hebrew Republic. You can't have it both ways. I find it intriguing that Christians so desperately want the Constitution to be judged by the Bible UNTIL someone, like myself, comes along and demonstrates it's actually biblically seditious.


There are no moral vacuums anywhere in life. This includes the federal Constitution. It's either biblically compatible in all of its individual components or its not. It stands alone and muct be tested by the Bible, and when it is, it falls flat on its face as biblically compatible and is the reason why America is today teetering precipitously on the precipice of moral depravity and destruction. One only need to contrast the federal Constitution with the 17th-century Colonial Constitution to know that this is true. See blog article "375 Years Later: Constitution vs. Constitution" at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/375-years-later-constitution-vs-constitution/.


As for the States' Constitutions: Although more biblical than the federal Constitution, they were already extremely compromised, as clearly evidenced when compared to the 17th-century Colonial Constitutions. Yes, they required Christian test oaths (although nothing was said of biblical qualifications), they nevertheless also established governments of, by, and for the people rather than God.


Finally, please consider the following regarding theocracies:

"...There is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE.

"People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?..."

For more, see online Chapter 3 "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html.

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@LeeCarter @TedRWeiland Lee, thanks for responding. 

Hopefully, you'll agree there's only one standard by which everything (including the Constitution) is to be ethically evaluated: By Yahweh's immutable morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. When the Constitution is actually examined by this standard, it's found to be anything but a Biblically compatible document. In fact, there's hardly an Article or Amendment that's not antithetical, if not seditious to Yahweh's sovereignty and morality.

For evidence, see free online book "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective," in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible, at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html. If you (or anyone else here) will take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar, you'll receive a complimentary copy of the 85-page "Primer" of the 565-page "BL vs. USC."

Concerning your oft-parroted examples, I address nearly all of them in my blog series entitled "Straining at Gnats..." You can find Part 1 at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/straining-at-gnats/.


Following is but one example demonstrating that your contention that the Constitution's representative governments comes from the Bible is erroneous:


"...Some Constitutionalists argue that the concept of representative government originated with Moses:

And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. (Exodus 18:25)

"Nowhere in the framers’ copious convention notes, the Federalist Papers, or anywhere else in their writings, do we find any indication that the idea for the House of Representatives was inspired by Exodus 18:25. Christian Constitutionalists apply Exodus 18:25 to this section of the Constitution to give it an aura of Biblical authority. But Moses’ charge has nothing to do with representatives of the people. As proven by its context, it is a provision for judges – representatives of Yahweh: 

…thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge…. So Moses … chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at all seasons…. (Exodus 18:21-26)..." 
(Excerpted from online Chapter 4 "Article 1: Executive Usurpation" of "BL vs. USC)

In other words, instead of forming a government of, by, and for God, based upon His immutable moral law (like America's true 17th-century Christian forbears did), the 18th-century founders formed a government of, by, and for the people, based upon capricious Enlightenment and Masonic concepts.

I hope you'll take the survey, I'd love to send you the book.

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

Being what you know about the Constitution, Joel, how can you promote a book that appears to promote the Constitution as biblically compatible, which will only further entrench it's sedition and idolatry with Christians?

2 months ago on A lost-and-found treasure: When America’s pastors boldly preached politics, resisted tyranny, and founded a nation on the Bible

Reply

@nightman @grunion @BillLeague Great title!


For anyone interested in a biblical examination of the Constitution, demonstrating it is anything but biblically compatible, see free online book "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective," in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible, at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html.


If you participate in our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar, you'll receive a complimentary copy of the 85-page "Primer" of the 565-page "BL vs. USC."

2 months ago on Is it Time to Disarm the Police?

Reply

My take on this is a little different than North's. When Christians are, once again, in control of the civil body politic, implementing Yahweh's commandments and statutes as the law of the land and rendering His judgments upon the wicked, crime will be all but unheard of.

Add to that with an armed "police force" consisting of EVERY able-bodied 20-year-old male of sound mind responsible for  defending themselves and the protection of their family, and neighbor (Deuteronomy 22:24, Psalm 149:6-9, 1 Timothy 5:8, etc.), such a society won't need a tax-paid professional police force, except for investigative purposes after the rare crime has been committed.

For more on how Yahweh's immutable triune moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments) apply and should be implemented today, see free online book "Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Today" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html.

See also online Chapter 12 "Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt12.html.

2 months, 1 week ago on Is it Time to Disarm the Police?

Reply

@Tionico @TedRWeiland @Matthew Hoover Thanks for clarifying. My apology for misrepresenting you. However, after re-reading your post, I'm not so sure I did.


Perhaps, you too rushed to judgment? Where have I insisted on any specific pronunciation?


You may have missed the following as a part of a previous answer to Gary Lincoln:


Answer to Question #2: I doubt the debate on the correct pronunciation and spelling of the Tetragrammaton is going to end anytime soon. Although I think it's important for each of us to do our best to determine the proper pronunciation and spelling, I don't think that the lack of agreement is an excuse to not replace His name where He inspired it. I'm comfortable with Yahweh. However, I'm not going to judge someone who's study had led them to a different spelling and pronunciation.

That said, when you read, for example, Isaiah 12:5 (one of nearly 7,000 locations where His name was unlawfully removed and replaced with inspired surrogates) how do you read it:

"Sing unto the LORD, for he hat done excellent things...." (Isaiah 12:5)


Do you read it with Yahweh, Jehovah, or some other rendition of His name, or do you read it the way the English translators corrupted it?

2 months, 2 weeks ago on Blasphemy and Freedom

Reply

@Tionico @TedRWeiland @Matthew Hoover Being it was God who chose to include His memorial name (Exodus 3:14-15) nearly 7,000 times in His Word (which does NOT translate into either "the LORD" or "GOD") and then charged us to use His name in a myriad of passages in a myriad of ways, you'll have to take up your accusation of "holy underwear nonsense" up with Him.

2 months, 2 weeks ago on Blasphemy and Freedom

Reply

@GaryLincoln @TedRWeiland @BigDaddy1944 

Answer to Question #1: I don't know.

Answer to Question #2: I doubt the debate on the correct pronunciation and spelling of the Tetragrammaton is going to end anytime soon. Although I think it's important for each of us to do our best to determine the proper pronunciation and spelling, I don't think that the lack of agreement is an excuse to not replace His name where He inspired it. I'm comfortable with Yahweh. However, I'm not going to judge someone who's study had led them to a different spelling and pronunciation.


Got to go, gotta sermon to prepare.

2 months, 2 weeks ago on Blasphemy and Freedom

Reply

@GaryLincoln @TedRWeiland @BigDaddy1944 

There is evidence, however, that the original Septuagint preserved God’s Hebrew name. In Biblical Archeology Review, George Howard, Professor of Religion at the University of Georgia, provided important information from the Fuad Papyri collection:

In 1944, W.G. Waddell discovered the remains of an Egyptian papyrus scroll (Papyrus Fuad 266) dating to the first or second century BC that included part of the Septuagint. In no instance, however, was YHWH translated kyrios [lord]. Instead the Tetragrammaton itself – in square Aramaic letters – was written into the Greek text. This parallels the Qumran Covenanters’ use of the palaeo-Hebrew script for the Divine Name in a document which was otherwise written in square Aramaic script.17

Professor Howard provided evidence from two other Greek Old Testament manuscripts that also inserted the Hebrew Tetragrammaton into the Greek text:

Thus, we have three separate pre-Christian copies of the Greek Septuagint Bible and in not a single instance is the Tetragrammaton translated kyrios or for that matter translated at all. We can now say with near certainty that it was a Jewish practice before, during, and after the New Testament period to write the divine name in paleo-Hebrew or square Aramaic script or in transliteration right into the Greek text of Scritpure.18

2 months, 2 weeks ago on Blasphemy and Freedom

Reply

@GaryLincoln @TedRWeiland @BigDaddy1944 Some of the early LXX manuscripts inserted the Hebrew Tetragrammaton into the Greek text.

2 months, 2 weeks ago on Blasphemy and Freedom

Reply

@GaryLincoln @TedRWeiland @BigDaddy1944 You seem to have taken offense when none was intended. However, I bear the burden for not doing a better job of stating my point. My apologies,


For the sake of time, I think it would be best for you to first read the booklet I've recommended as it addresses some of your concerns. I will be pleased to send you a complimentary copy of the book itself so you don't have to print a copy from our website. If interested, you can provide the necessary mailing information via our Contact Button or email me at tweiland@vistabeam.com.

2 months, 2 weeks ago on Blasphemy and Freedom

Reply

@Matthew Hoover @TedRWeiland First, I agree with you that if I were to eliminate Kyrios and Theos WHERE THEY WERE INSPIRED BY YAHWEH TO APPEAR IN HIS WORD that I would be as guilty as those who replaced the Tetragrammaton with Kyrios and Theos where not inspired by Yahweh.


"...IIncredibly, the prefaces and forewords of most English versions of the Bible state the reasons the English translators chose to remove His name. After admitting “it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced ‘Yahweh,’” the translators of the Revised Standard Version excuse themselves for removing the Tetragrammaton from the Old Testament:

The present revision returns to the procedure of the King James Version … and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew scriptures in the synagogue…. For two reasons the committee has returned to the more familiar usage [of substituting “the LORD” or “GOD” for YHWH] of the King James Version: (1) the word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.11

"Initially, these reasons may appear convincing. However, no man or group of men have the right to overrule God regardless of the excuse. Yahweh, and Yahweh alone, knows what standard is appropriate for the Christian Church.

The editorial board of the New American Standard Bible made the following admission:

This name [Yahweh] has not been pronounced by the Jews…. Therefore, it has been consistently translated Lord.12

"What the Jews pronounce or do not pronounce should have no bearing on how God’s inspired Word is translated. The Complete Bible: An American Translation, also known as The Smith and Goodspeed English Bible, is probably the most candid:

As nearly as we can now tell, the Hebrews called their Deity by the Name Yahweh, and in a shorter form, Yah…. In course of time … [YHWH was] substituted [with] the Hebrew word “Lord.” When vowels were added to the text, the consonants of “Yahweh” were given the vowels of “Lord.” Somewhere in the fourteenth century A.D. Christian scholars, not understanding this usage, took the vowels and consonants exactly as they were written and produced the artificial name “Jehovah” which has persisted ever since. In this translation we have followed the orthodox Jewish tradition and substituted “the Lord” for the name “Yahweh” and the phrase “the Lord God” for the phrase “the Lord Yahweh.” In all cases where “Lord” or “God” represents an original “Yahweh” small capitals are employed. Anyone, therefore, who desires to retain the flavor of the original text has but to read “Yahweh” wherever he sees LORD or GOD.13

"In light of Matthew 15:3, the English translators have no excuse for their actions:

But he [Yeshua] answered and said unto them [corrupt Judahite scribes and Pharisees], Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? …in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:3-9)...."
 Excerpted from the third in a series of ten booklets on the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments, at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/onlineBooks/third-commandment.html.

2 months, 2 weeks ago on Blasphemy and Freedom

Reply

@GaryLincoln @TedRWeiland @BigDaddy1944 Your question "Can you show me in any writing where Jesus or His Apostles in actual & specific words used or demanded the use of the Name YHVH during their time?" sets up a false paradigm--unless you're prepared to eliminate everything not reiterated by Christ found in the Old Testament.

For example, neither the First or Third Commandments are repeated in the New Testament, nor does Christ tell us to keep them. But does that mean they're no longer valid under the New Covenant.


Everything in Yahweh's triune moral law (His commandments, the statutes that explain them, and the judgments that enforce them) are still valid today, whether or not repeated in the New Testament:


"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Romans 3:31)


For more, see free online book "Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html.

2 months, 2 weeks ago on Blasphemy and Freedom

Reply

@GaryLincoln @TedRWeiland @BigDaddy1944 As Christian we certainly should address Him as our Father. However, to use Christ's prayer to eliminate also using His name in the numerous ways He instructed us to is to pit Scripture against Scripture rather than harmonizing those instructions with Christ's prayer.


Any Jewish tradition (which the English translators admitted to following, see the booklet I've cited previously for the documentation) that overrules Yahweh's instructions is a case of Matthew 15:6-9.

2 months, 2 weeks ago on Blasphemy and Freedom

Reply

@Matthew Hoover @TedRWeiland Thank you for responding.


Being we don't have the Apostle's original manuscripts we DON'T KNOW that they didn't. In fact, I think it's highly unlikely they didn't include the Tetragrammaton when quoting Old Testament Scripture that contained it. To have done so would have been to take away and add to Scripture.

What we DO KNOW is that Yahweh inspired His name to appear nearly 7,000 times to be read and pronounced and that we're instructed to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His  memorial name. If you can eliminate these instructions then there's no reason you cannot do the same with anyone of the Ten Commandments. 

 

2 months, 2 weeks ago on Blasphemy and Freedom

Reply

@BigDaddy1944 No, it's not. Not when the Father Himself inspired His memorial name to appear nearly 7,000 times in His word and instructed us to to declare, publish, glory in, magnify, glorify, wait on, praise, honor, extol, seek, bless, call upon, thank, desire, think upon, hallow, and hold fast His name.

For a list of passages that provide those instructions, see the third in a series of ten booklets on the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments, free online at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/onlineBooks/third-commandment.html.

2 months, 2 weeks ago on Blasphemy and Freedom

Reply

@GaryLincoln @TedRWeiland I have but I've yet to solid evidence for the claim.

2 months, 2 weeks ago on Blasphemy and Freedom

Reply

@GaryLincoln @TedRWeiland Thanks for responding. 

Difficulties (and/or differences) regarding the pronunciation of His name does not absolve the English translators for having removed what Yahweh inspired or us from reinserting what Yahweh inspired, especially in light of the plethora of scriptures that charge us to memorialize, proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name.

2 months, 2 weeks ago on Blasphemy and Freedom

Reply

Joel McDurmon: "“What’s in a name?” If you’re talking about God, the answer is “everything.”"

Agreed! So WHY do most Christians refuse to identify God by His name, particularly in the nearly 7,000 locations where He inspired it to appear in His Word, which were replaced with the surrogates "the LORD" and "GOD," when found in all capital letters? Was this also not a case of the English translators (inspired by Jewish traditions--Matthew 15:6-9) making vain His name?


"...Among other things, we are to memorialize, declare, publish, glory in, magnify, glorify, wait on, praise, honor, extol, seek, bless, call upon, thank, desire, think upon, hallow, hold fast, and fear God’s name. How can we do any of these things if we do not know His name?...

"Exodus 23 commands us not to mention, and therefore not to memorialize, the personal names of other gods, whereas Exodus 3 commands us to memorialize – to use – the name of our God. With this in mind, consider the following definitions of the Hebrew word shav, which is translated “vain” in the Third Commandment:

…Emptiness, nothingness, vanity….8

…in the sense of desolating; evil (as destructive), literally (ruin) … uselessness (as deceptive, objective; also adverbially, in vain).9

"This is precisely what most English translators did when they replaced Yahweh’s personal name with impersonal titles – they desolated and therefore made His name vain. Exodus 23:13 commands us not to mention the names of other gods. However, because the translators removed the Tetragrammaton “YHWH” from the Bible and replaced it with stand-in titles, it is our God’s name that is seldom mentioned and has, therefore, been forgotten...."


Should we be any less tenacious about identifying our God by His memorial name Yahweh than the Muslims are their god?


For more, see the third in a series of ten booklets on the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments, at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/onlineBooks/third-commandment.html.

2 months, 2 weeks ago on Blasphemy and Freedom

Reply

The confusion represented at different points from both positions in this piece disappears when the terms "Israelites," "Jews" ("Judahites"), and "gentiles" are biblically and, therefore, correctly identified. Until this is accomplished, confusion will persist and both sides will be attacking straw men. 


As one example, to identify all twelve tribes as Jews (Judahites) and to then represent them all (all twelve tribes ) as having returned with Ezra and Nehemiah is to do ignore not only the distinction between the two-tribed house of Judah (Judah and Benjamin) and the ten-tribed house of Israel, but it also ignores the text that unequivocally identifies the Israelites that returned with Ezra and Nehemiah as being only from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. For one example:


"And they made proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem unto ALL the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves together unto Jerusalem; and that whosoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of those that had been carried away. Then ALL THE MEN OF JUDAH AND BENJAMIN gathered themselves together unto Jerusalem within three days." (Ezra 10:7-9)


For more, regarding the Biblical identification of the Israelites, Judahites, and gentiles (even the usual capitalization of gentiles is incorrect), see free online book "The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now?" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/mystery-of-gentiles/index.php.

3 months, 1 week ago on Prophecy Writers Making Predictions Again

Reply

Joel, if this is recorded and audio CDs will be made available, please be sure to advise on how to acquire them following the debate. May God use you for King and kingdom!

3 months, 2 weeks ago on Theonomy Debate: McDurmon vs. Hall

Reply

@JohnBPachol @TedRWeiland Thanks for responding.

You can find my suggested Biblical Constitution (a replacement for today's Biblically seditious Constitution's Preamble and First three Articles) at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/biblicalConstitution.html.

3 months, 3 weeks ago on Misguided outrage on Obama’s “unconstitutional” executive action

Reply

"...When judicial proceedings are conducted according to Yahweh’s protocol, grand juries are as unnecessary and inherently flawed as are petit, or trial, juries. (See Chapter 6 for information concerning the United States Constitutional Republic’s unbiblical jury system.) Yahweh has provided the following six safeguards in His Word...."

For those six safeguards and more, see online Chapter 14 "Amendment 5: Constitutional vs. Biblical Judicial Protection" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt14.html.

3 months, 3 weeks ago on Deadly justice: Ferguson and beyond

Reply

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind...." (Hosea 8:7)

Do not overlook that in this passage both the wind and the whirlwind are wicked. The whirlwind is somewhat akin to the Pharisees' proselytes described by Christ, in Matthew 23:15, as "twofold sons of hell."

Obama is akin to the twofold sons of hell, but those who empowered him are nevertheless sons of hell themselves. And WHO was it who made it possible for Obama to inhabit America's high place but the late 1700 founders who replaced the 1600 Christian Colonial governments of, by, and for God, based upon His immutable moral law, with their own humanistic government of, by, and for the people, based upon capricious Enlightenment and Masonic concepts.

As one example, Obama could have never become President had the constitutional framers not replaced biblical elections with constitutional elections and had they not, in Article 6, banned Christian tests and with them biblical qualifications.

In other words, Obama and his actions are just more fallout (another whirlwind consequence) resulting from a much more foundational problem--the humanistic wind sown by the late 1700 founders. Thus, until we deal with the wind, today's whirlwind (even if "fixed") will inevitably be replaced by another whirlwind, probably even more tumultuous.


To help get to the core of the problem, see online Chapter 3 "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html.

3 months, 3 weeks ago on Misguided outrage on Obama’s “unconstitutional” executive action

Reply

@Tionico @TedRWeiland I'm pleased to hear you're not a Mormon.


Of course you're contract to sell your house is NOT morally neutral. If, unlike the Constitution, it's drawn up with no Biblically errant components, it's Biblically compatible. If, like the Constitution, it's rife with Biblically hostile components, it's Biblically incompatible.



4 months, 1 week ago on We have returned to ground zero for liberty; fix this or else

Reply

@Tionico @TedRWeiland So you DO believe it's a morally neutral document--despite the fact there is hardly an Article or Amendment that's not hostile to Yahweh's sovereignty and morality!?!


You've never answered my question: Are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (commonly known as the Mormon church)?

4 months, 1 week ago on We have returned to ground zero for liberty; fix this or else

Reply

@Tionico @TedRWeiland You wrote "The issue is not one of a failure of the Constitution...."

What!?! 

You know as well as I that there are no moral vacuums in life. The Constitution is a legislative instrument and it is either based upon and promotes Yahweh's sovereignty and His perfect law as the standard for society or it's opposed to both. It's one or the other. 

Consequently, easy enough to find out which it is: Examine the Constitution line by line, Article by Article, and Amendment by Amendment by Yahweh's immutable moral standard as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments and see which it is. When this is actually done, the Constitution falls flat on its face as Biblically compatible document. In fact, there is hardly an Article or Amendment which is not antithetical, if not seditious to Yahweh's sovereignty and morality.


For evidence, see free online book "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective," in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible, at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html.

4 months, 1 week ago on We have returned to ground zero for liberty; fix this or else

Reply

@Tionico @TedRWeiland Once again, you demonstrate that idols die hard.


The late 1700 State Constitutions were a far cry from the 1600 Constitutions. Albeit better than the Federal Constitution, they were already rife with Enlightenment concepts. Returning to either of these accomplishes nothing.


Time to scurry as fast as you can from what might be described as Mt. Carmel Christianity. See blog Article "Today's Mt. Carmel Christianity" at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/todays-mount-carmel-christians/, followed by "Could You be a Disciple of Baal and Not Know It?"

4 months, 1 week ago on We have returned to ground zero for liberty; fix this or else

Reply

@Mark On our hearts and minds to be put into practice with our hands and feet. Why else would Yahweh put it on our hearts and minds?


“The law sends us to the gospel for our justification; the gospel sends us to the law to frame our way of life.” Puritan minister Samuel Bolton (1606-1654)

You have failed to address the list of New Testament passages provided you. Instead of harmonizing what the New Testament declares about Yahweh's moral law as it applies under the New Covenant, your doctrine pits Scripture against Scripture.

4 months, 1 week ago on We have returned to ground zero for liberty; fix this or else

Reply