Print Friendly

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Psalm 11:3)

Have you ever wondered how it is that America finds herself teetering on the precipice of moral depravity and destruction? The answer is found in a comparison of two constitutions, one (the Fundamental Agreement of New Haven, Connecticut) that celebrated its 375th anniversary on January 14, 2014:

The Bible: Americas Original Constitution

Fundamental Agreement of the Colony of New Haven, CT, 1639: Agreement; We all agree that the scriptures hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in duties which they are to perform to God and to man, as well in families and commonwealth as in matters of the church; so likewise in all public officers which concern civil order, as choice of magistrates and officers, making and repealing laws, dividing allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature, we will, all of us, be ordered by the rules which the scripture holds forth; and we agree that such persons may be entrusted with such matters of government as are described in Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13 with Deuteronomy 17:15 and 1 Corinthians 6:1, 6 & 7….

John W. Welch commented on the outstanding influence Yahweh’s1 law had in Colonial America:

Indeed, it has rightly been concluded that “the ideal polity of early Puritan New England was thought to comprehend divine intentions as revealed in Mosaic law.” The rule of law began, not with the rules of man but with the rules of God. One Puritan document directly states, “[T]he more any law smells of man, the more unprofitable,” and thus, it asserts, the only proper laws were in fact “divine ordinances, revealed in the pages of Holy Writ and administered according to deductions and rules gathered from the Word of God.”2

Almost as impressive as New Haven’s agreement are the testimonies to it:

John Clark Ridpath, History of the United States, 1874: In June of 1639 the leading men of New Haven held a convention in a barn, and formally adopted the Bible as the constitution of the State. Everything was strictly conformed to the religious standard. The government was called the House of Wisdom…. None but church members were admitted to the rights of citizenship.3

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

Amongst these documents we shall notice, as especially characteristic, the code of laws promulgated by the little State of Connecticut…. 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.4

Tocqueville testified that it was the “legislation of that period,” in particular, that set America apart from other nations and that provided solutions to the rest of the world. This was in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 4:

Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as YHWH 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 YHWH 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)

America was exalted in the eyes of the world because of her applied righteousness, embodied in Yahweh’s perfect law (Psalm 19:7). This is no longer true. America has, instead, become the most despised nation upon the earth. This is not because other nations are envious of her, as politicians often claim, but because her laws no longer reflect Yahweh’s righteousness. In fact, her laws have not reflected Yahweh’s righteousness since the adoption of the framers’ secular Constitution.5

The FramersSecular Traditions: Americas Second Constitution

In the late 1700s, a change of law and government occurred, not only from English rule, but also from the Colonies’ Biblically based governments. From that moment on, the nation that had been predominately Christian became progressively secular and humanistic. In short, America’s Biblical and Christian foundations were destroyed.

The framers nowhere attributed the inspiration for any specific article or amendment in the Constitution to the Bible or the laws of Yahweh. After reviewing over 2,200 political writings published between 1760 and 1805, David S. Lutz and Charles S. Hyneman came to some very interesting conclusions regarding the Bible’s influence upon the constitutional framers and others of that period. Lutz admitted that while the “book … most frequently cited by Americans during the founding era [was] … the Book of Deuteronomy, … the Bible’s prominence disappears [during the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate over the Constitution],” and “the Federalists’ inclination to Enlightenment rationalism is most evident here in their failure to consider the Bible relevant.”6

Culpability

The United States Constitution was inspired, not by Yahweh, but by a small group of men claiming to represent their new god We the People.7 Patrick Henry (who refused to be one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention, saying he smelled a rat) later insisted the conventioneers had no right to claim they represented the people. Nevertheless, by their silence, the people gave their assent, as did those in 2 Samuel 24 when King David pursued an unlawful census. David did not take the brunt of Yahweh’s wrath, but rather the people who allowed David to proceed with the census.

Judgment of the people for the transgressions of their rulers is found time and again in the Bible (2 Kings 24:1-4, 2 Chronicles 28:19, etc.). The people are ultimately responsible. They were responsible when the constitutional conventioneers chose a new god, and we will continue to be responsible until we rise up, repent of our forefathers’ sins, overthrow We the People’s constitution, and return to Yahweh’s constitution.

Since 1789, 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. It instead reflects America’s haughty imperialistic posture. And 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 as expressed in the Fundamental Agreement of New Haven, Connecticut.

Until America restores her Biblical foundations, the righteous will continue to flounder and America will continue to teeter on, if not fall into, the precipice of moral degradation.

Related post:

American Exceptionalism

Preamble (Biblical rewrite)

Article 1 (Biblical rewrite)

Article 2 (Biblical rewrite)

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

 

1. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. It was unlawfully deleted by the English translators. In obedience to the Third Commandment and the many Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, we have chosen to memorialize His name here in this document and in our lives. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”

2. John W. Welch, “Biblical Law in America: Historical Perspectives and Potentials for Reform,” Brigham Young University Law Review, 30 September 2002, <http://www.contra-mundum.org/essays/theonomy/WEL1.pdf.>

3. John Clark Ridpath, History of the United States, 4 vols. (New York, NY: The American Book Company, 1874) vol. 1, p. 181.

4. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vols. (New York: NY: The Colonial Press, 1899) vol. 1, pp. 36-37.

5. Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

6. Donald S. Lutz, “The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought,” The American Political Science Review (March 1984) pp. 189-97.

7. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

  1. Fr. John+ says:

    Again, an excellent analysis of the necessity of seeing America, and the Anglo-Americans that founded her, as a nation bound by an irreversible covenant of grace.
    We cannot be a ‘proposition nation,’ nor can we be a ‘post-christian’ nation. We can only be a covenant-obeying race, or an apostate, miscegenating, and miscegenated race/nation, which calls down the wrath of God for our fornications. Bravo!

  2. Gregory Alan of Johnson says:

    Are there “W”‘s in Hebrew? I thought it was “V”, as in YHVH or Yehovah/Y’hoVah.
    Only church members could be citizens of New Haven, eh?
    Could the Founders have instituted a Biblical Government with a debt from the war with England still owed? Would the international bankers have accepted such a document?

    • David Hodges says:

      The banksters have won every war America has had. The banking industry grew like kudzu after the Revolutionary War.

      • Gregory Alan of Johnson says:

        That doesn’t answer the second and third question in my comment.

        • David Hodges says:

          Nor does it answer the first and fourth. The founders/conspirators could have continued with the theocracies. But they knew they would soon be at war again as soon as all debts were declared null, according to Leviticus 25. The banksters would not have allowed that. Being a Christian doesn’t just involve singing and smiling. It also involves turning from cowardice. It would have been good if our Colonial American ancestors had focused more on preparing for war, rather than borrowing from those who live by war. But the fulfillment of Genesis 27:40 is upon us. Esau lives by the sword, and has the dominion.

      • edward budny says:

        except the revolutionary war( after that) the international bankers got a foot hold in 1776 by the signing of the illuninatist u,s, constitution

    • COMALite J says:

      Yes, Hebrew has a “W” sound (letter named “Waw”). What it doesn’t have is a “J” sound — all Hebrew names that the KJV and other versions transliterate with “J” should be “Y” instead, as in “Yahweh” instead of “Jehovah” (which, unlike Pastor Weiland’s Footnote #¹, is actually the most common transliteration [albeit a mistransliteration] of the Tetragrammaton).

      Another example is “Joshua,” which should more properly be transliterated “Yehowshua.” Note that this is also “Jesus”’s actual name — He never once heard the word “Jesus” in His life, and neither did anyone else in His day!

  3. Little Bright Feather says:

    Actually it’s 227 years , not 375.
    International bankers are FOREIGN and should have never been allowed to get in control here – but with the help from Tyrant and Traitor Lincoln they did. Also the money changers of Wall Street should have never been allowed to form. The foundation of America was the Bible. The Founders never allowed Muslims to touch this soil – that policy should have been held to as all the Founders Law should have. Not the “stuff” that came out of DC ! Now if they would make this font large enough so we could actually read it, that would be great.

    • Thank you for joining us.

      No, it’s 375 years. You’re counting from the United States secular Constitution rather than from the New Haven, Connecticut Agreement of 1639.

      America’s foundations in the 1600s was the Bible. That was certainly NOT the case in the late 1700s. See “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” (http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html) in which every article and amendment is examined by the Bible, demonstrating that the Constitution is anything but Biblical.

      The 1700 “founders” DID in fact allow for Muslims. When they replaced the monotheistic First Commandment (as found intact in some of the 1600 Colonial Constitutions, such as the New Haven Agreement) with the polytheistic enabling First Amendment, they provided for Muslims and every other religion to proliferate its god here in America, and they knew they were doing so as well. See Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt11.html.

      Sorry you’re having trouble reading this. I have not control over this. However, you can get a better found size by using our print button to print a hard copy.

      • COMALite J says:

        The New Haven, CT Agreement of 1639 was not a Constitution. Also, you keep focusing on a handful of New England colonies (Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay, etc.) as if they represented the whole of British America at the time. There were thirteen Colonies, and not all nor even most of them had established laws based solely on YHWH’s perfect, immutable law, not even back in the early-to-mid 1600s.

        The United States of America as a whole, from the day of its founding, even before the Constitution, was never a Bible-based Christian nation, and for good reason.

        You quoted John Clark Ridpath’s “None but church members were admitted to the rights of citizenship.” The question is, which Church!? As it turns out, one had to be an outright Puritan to be considered a citizen of that colony. Not just a Christian. Not just a Protestant. Not even just another variant of Anglican. You had to be Puritan. Nothing else.

        Do you agree with this? Does that mean that you, personally, are a Puritan? If not, why not, since your agreement with this would also mean that you, like them, consider the Puritan faith to be the one and only true Christianity?

      • edward budny says:

        hi ted ,
        ed budny here happy new year,in yahways(jesus)name.
        I believe we should as true christians draft a new constitution
        that conforms to the scripture for instance (in context of this blog)
        on the first amendment it would have
        better been written something like congress shall
        not make any laws pohibiting the free
        excersize of the only true religion I.e of yahwey
        /yashua/jesus the christ.
        remember ted the bible says that by our words
        we shall be justified/or condemed
        we as the church in america should
        draft up a entire.new constitution in
        this way and put unrelenting pressure on
        congress( perhaps through the tea party)
        to ratify it .now ted I will be praying
        if yahways will that you would be the man to draft
        such a constitution.amen

        • Ask and you shall receive. Following is my suggested replacement for the Preamble and first three Articles: http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/biblicalConstitution.html.

          • edward budny says:

            thanks ted this is very helpful ted since yahwey is our lawgiver king and advocate there really is no need for the feds and fed constitution
            ive been musing bout this for years
            we would be better off with something
            like the articles of confederation right .
            what do we do about foreign invaders which
            should of been the only function of the
            federal constitution to protect us
            from outside invaders

          • The Article of Confederation were better than the federal Constitution but were still Biblically compromised. It was actually a natural progression {digression] from them to the federal Constitution to where we find ourselves today.

          • stan schmunk says:

            Not true, Ted. They created chaos and a situation more akin to Judges where every man/colony/state did what was pleasing in its own eyes. The Federalist papers are quite clear on this.

          • It’s not the Federalist papers but the Bible that determines which is more Biblical. When the Constitution is actually examined by the Bible, it’s found that the Constitution is anything but Biblically compatible. In fact, there is hardly and Article or Amendment that’s not antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality.

            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.

          • stan schmunk says:

            I didn’t say the Constituion was biblical. I know it’s not but neither were the Articles. But neither were they so antithetical to the point you say. The Gospel is meant to be preached no matter what kind of government we live in.

          • Of course, the gospel is meant to be preached regardless the government. What’s that have to do with what’s being discussed?

            As for the Constitutional not being as Biblically antithetical as I claim, how would you know this? Have you read “BL vs. USC” or are you guilty of Proverbs 18:13?

          • stan schmunk says:

            The Constitution’s problem is that it is amoral and secular. Religion is left to fend for itself.

          • I take it you were guilty of Proverbs 18:13.

            There are no moral vacuums anywhere. Nothing is amoral. It’s always a choice between what’s good and evil as defined by Yahweh’s morality as codified in His triune moral law. Nowhere does God provide a third choice.

            Amorality is a man-made concept. It’s what’s known as lukewarmness in Revelation 3. See blog article “Lukewarmness: Just a Warmer Degree of Cold” at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/lukewarm-just-a-warmer-degree-of-cold/.

            Therefore what we find in the Constitution either harmonizes with what’s found in the Bible or it stands in opposition to what’s found in the Bible.

          • Andrew Patton says:

            That which has no mind of its own is amoral. Animals, for instance, are amoral. Even an animal that is put to death for killing a human is put to death because it is dangerous, not because it is evil, for animals, lacking rational souls, have no capacity to be good or evil.

    • stan schmunk says:

      The foundation of America was the production of tobacco and rum, which required stolen labor from Africa. The sum of the Law is love of God and love of neighbor and things like paying employees what they’re worth, on time and letting the very poorest sit in front in church. None of these were practiced widely at our founding.

      • It was not, it was trees and furs during the colony period. Many of the people that came here during that time were white debtors. The trees were highly sought after because Britain had decimated her forests with (war) ship building. Some of the early riots in the colonies were over payment for the trees which were a lucrative business.

        The founding fathers (which was coined by one the presidents killed in the Curse of the Zeroes), which are the people I refer to that actually settled the USA, tried socialist practices at first. Paying people what they are “worth” and communal sharing . They failed at that. Then they tried each man making his own way and worth himself and succeeded.

        You were expected to learn a craft from a craftsman, then you would get paid what you were “worth” or go out on your own and succeed. Benjamin Franklin would be a popular example.

        Dick Morris, of all people, had it right concerning slavery. It had it’s roots in a religious battle carried over from Britain. It basically goes back to the offshoots of Martin Luther, Calvin, etc. each man following his own doctrine.

        At the beginning of America, there use to be black preachers at white churches. It was not until this nation became a nation with a president, that the clock started ticking down towards the Civil War. You will find the same pattern in Uganda, 50 years after that country was free from the UK. Though Uganda has turned the other way and started to outlaw the very things God hates such as homosexual conduct, of which we now approve.

        It was with the making of fiat money and coins, thanks to the Constitution, that slavery really took hold. That allowed people to be turned into property to be treated worse then livestock. What slavery in America was fulfilment of scripture.

        =====
        Genesis 9
        24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

        25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
        =====

        The founding fathers of this country did practice Christian values and God’s law, as well as any flesh person can. They did love their neighbour. William Penn who wrote most of the colony charters would be a good example.

        BUT, the whole reason this country exists is because our forefathers rejected God for a king, this was the message the stenographer delivered on the House Floor in and the hallway.

        • stan schmunk says:

          John, I appreciate your lengthy answer but as an evangelical Christian I have to say that it’s not true. Why don’t you spend some time researching the history of Virginia? Whatever you’ve been reading is revisionist nonsense. And the Scripture regarding Canaan being fulfilled does not speak to African-Americans. Read the book of James.

    • COMALite J says:

      Are you reading this on a desktop computer (PC or Mac), or a smartphone or tablet?

      If the former, try holding [Ctrl] and repeatedly pressing [+] (either on the main keyboard or on the numeric keypad). That should enlarge the whole page, text and graphics alike, in Firefox. You can also tell it to enlarge only the text but leave graphics and other elements alone by using the View menu / Zoom sub-menu / “Zoom Text Only.”

      Similar functionality exists in Chrome, IE, Safari, Opera, etc.

      Since this particular WordPress site doesn’t use a responsive theme, unless it has a special Mobilizer or some such plugin installed, it won’t properly adapt to a smartphone or tablet. For that, I recommend rotating to horizontal, then using your fingers to expand the size using the standard “zoom-in” two-finger gesture.

  4. joe1cr says:

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. BUT IT CANNOT SURVIVE TREASON FROM WITHIN. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But THE TRAITOR MOVES AMONGST THOSE WITHIN THE GATE FREELY, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of GOVERNMENT itself. FOR THE TRAITOR APPEARS NOT A TRAITOR; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, HE APPEALS TO THE BASENESS THAT LIES DEEP IN THE HEARTS OF ALL MEN. HE ROTS THE SOUL OF A NATION, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A MURDERER IS LESS TO FEAR. THE TRAITOR IS THE PLAGUE.”

    Marcus Tullius Cicero
    (106-43 B.C.) Roman Statesman, Philosopher and Orator
    Source:

    Attributed. 58 BC, Speech in the Roman Senate

  5. stan schmunk says:

    Reminder, Moses also told the people that they wouldn’t keep the Law. And very clearly israel failed at keeping the Law to the point that Paul said that God’s name was being blasphemed because of the Jews. He also said that the Law produced sin. Any nation built on the Law will fail just like Israel did.

    • All nations are built on law. Are you saying that nations are more likely to succeed built on man’s capricious laws rather than Yahweh immutable perfect law of liberty?

      • stan schmunk says:

        Please respond to my comment which is taken from Scripture.

        • I will be pleased to. But first please let me know if my interpretation of what you’re saying is accurate. If not, please explain.

          • stan schmunk says:

            You didn’t interpret my comment.

          • Please elaborate. Your last sentence (“Any nation built on the Law will fail just like Israel did.”) seems to imply that you do not think we should be attempting to establish government and society upon Yahweh’s law.

            True or False: Under the New Covenant, Christians should be pursuing Yahweh’s triune immutable moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments) as the standard for society?

          • stan schmunk says:

            Ted, you still haven’t responded to my comment. Was what I said about Moses & Paul, etc. true or not? You’re getting way ahead of me and yourself.

          • No, I’m trying to properly interpret what you’re saying in order to properly respond to your question. So, please answer my true or false question so we can proceed with your question.

          • stan schmunk says:

            That’s not the way discussions work, Ted. I made certain comments from Scripture and am only asking you if they were true or not. We can discuss implications later.

          • Yes that is how discussions work. However, before we can work the discussion, I need to make sure I understand what you first stated before I can properly answer your question. Frankly, most of your posts are so poorly stated, I have to read them two or three times to figure out what you’re saying.

            I think I already know the answer but I don’t want jump to false conclusions and misrepresent you.

            I’ve already declared that I will be pleased to answer your question once I’m sure I understand the basis for your question.

            At this point, it appears you’re just being evasive so as to not have to answer the question. If this isn’t true, it merely requires a simple true or false response to my last question and then I’ll proceed with your question.

          • stan schmunk says:

            How about a yes or no to my statements about what Moses and Paul said?

          • edward budny says:

            I anwserd it go back to that post again it seems that you are contentious that no response is good enough for you

          • Edward, this response from Stan as, at least, one of the others was, was to me, not you.

          • Stan, I don’t have time for your evasive maneuvering. Either answer my question so we can proceed or I’ll have no choice but to bar you from further involvement on this site.

          • stan schmunk says:

            I’m not evasive, Ted, but you are because I’m referring to Scriptures which challenge your theonomist viewpont. Of course it’s your blog and you can do what you want but theonomy is heresy and theonomists are heretics. I ran across Rushdoony 40 years ago and he was rightly described as a lunatic. I urge you to immediately repent and abandon this heresy while there is still time. Otherwise you stand a great risk of facing Jesus on judgement day and hear him tell you to leave His presence forever because He never knew you.

          • Of course, you’re evasive. I asked for clarification and told you once I understood your meaning, I would answer your question (more than once). If you weren’t evasive, we wouldn’t be having this tit for tat conversation. We would have gotten into your question long ago.

            If you’re correct about theonomy (the alternative being autonomy per Deuteronomy 28:15-69, Judges 21:25, Matthew 15:6-9, and a myriad of other passages) being heresy, you’ve certainly yet to come close to proving it. I wonder which Yahweh considers heresy: autonomy-self rule or theonomy-God rule.

            You’re correct it is my blog and I have had enough of your time-consuming evasive nonsense.

          • edward budny says:

            amen to that ted .ted I want to take this time to publically apologize for my speech on your blog and my language (not my stand) against mr smunk but I also humbly recommend he be booted off the blog unless he apologizes also to me you and mr, rushdoony(and all theonomists publicly on this blog) for judging us as heritics.furthermore I request that you leading a new study on the blog on what constitutes heresy there is heresy and DANAEBLR HERESIES it should be fruitful and clear the air amen?

          • Your apology accepted. If he chooses to apologize, he’ll have to do so via another forum, as he’s already been banned here.

          • edward budny says:

            thank you ted perhaps we can continue to pray for him.

          • I think it would also be good if you were to go up where you first called him a smuck and apologize to him. I’m not sure, but I think he may still receive responses even though unable now to post himself.

          • edward budny says:

            will do

      • SpiderWatch says:

        I would argue yes. Nations built on cultural cooperation and mutual acceptance have been extremely successful without any biblical influence. The Achaemenid Empire, the Kingdom of Macedonia and its successor states, the Roman Empire, the Umayyad Caliphate, Han China, the various Mongol empires. These countries dominated there respective time periods and regions because they didn’t actively suppress minorities and those who thought differently than the ruling class. They took the best and the brightest, regardless of race or creed.

        Look at medieval Europe in contrast, a region and time dominated by Christianity and your biblical laws. It was a time of authoritarianism where you were basically stuck in your lot and to question it was a death sentence. The beating heart of innovation was in Baghdad and the Middle East. Algebra, astronomy, and many other sciences that would make modern life impossible got their modern start in Muslim courts because they were open to new ideas and few points.

      • SpiderWatch says:

        I would argue yes. Nations built on cultural cooperation and mutual acceptance have been extremely successful without any biblical influence. The Achaemenid Empire, the Kingdom of Macedonia and its successor states, the Roman Empire, the Umayyad Caliphate, Han China, the various Mongol empires. These countries dominated there respective time periods and regions because they didn’t actively suppress minorities and those who thought differently than the ruling class. They took the best and the brightest, regardless of race or creed.
        Look at medieval Europe in contrast, a region and time dominated by Christianity and your biblical laws. It was a time of authoritarianism where you were basically stuck in your lot and to question it was a death sentence. The beating heart of innovation was in Baghdad and the Middle East. Algebra, astronomy, and many other sciences that would make modern life impossible got their modern start in Muslim courts because they were open to new ideas and few points.

      • SpiderWatch says:

        I would argue yes. Nations built on cultural cooperation and mutual acceptance have been extremely successful without any biblical influence. The Achaemenid Empire, the Kingdom of Macedonia and its successor states, the Roman Empire, the Umayyad Caliphate, Han China, the various Mongol empires. These countries dominated there respective time periods and regions because they didn’t actively suppress minorities and those who thought differently than the ruling class. They took the best and the brightest, regardless of race or creed.
        Look at medieval Europe in contrast, a region and time dominated by Christianity and your biblical laws. It was a time of authoritarianism where you were basically stuck in your lot and to question it was a death sentence. The beating heart of innovation was in Baghdad and the Middle East. Algebra, astronomy, and many other sciences that would make modern life impossible got their modern start in Muslim courts because they were open to new ideas and few points.

    • edward budny says:

      remember king david said I love Gods law
      Christ Jesus is the king of kings and lord.of lords
      we dont obey Gods.law to become saved but to
      the extent we obey Gods law as a nation christ reigns
      blesses our nation and takes dominion.power over it as wel as the.whole.world

      • stan schmunk says:

        Not true. Christ only reigns if the vast majority people in it are genuine believers, who live by the Great commandment.

        • So, Christ’s sovereignty succeeds or fails based upon a majority of people’s obedience to Him?

          • stan schmunk says:

            Of course He’s always sovereign but that’s not what you’re saying.

          • What’s he (Edward Bundy) saying, then?

          • stan schmunk says:

            I was responding to you, Ted.

          • So then what am I saying?

          • stan schmunk says:

            You’re wanting that sovereignty to establish the kingdom of God on the earth through physical government.

          • edward budny says:

            now wouldn’t that be nice

          • Taking your statement to its logical conclusion, I gather you prefer autocracy (self rule whether individually, collectively, or by representation, per Judges 21:25) rather than theocoracy (God rule according His immutable moral law)–that is, that man be governed by fickle finite man’s capricious edicts (Matthew 15:6-9, etc.) rather than Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11)?

            Please confirm or deny whether my evaluation is correct.

          • edward budny says:

            ted, were the articles of confederation based on representative government(as set forth in Judges21: 25?

          • Yes. Despite the States Christian test oaths, they looked to man as sovereign. They were essentially the same as the federal Constitution in being government of, by, and for the people instead of God.

          • edward budny says:

            thank God they at least have test oaths as well as our
            state constitutions do.now ted wherwould you estimate
            (time wise)by comparison(not prophetically of course)
            would you put us in the time of the judges or/and
            even the kings of israel and judah
            since america is part of the anglo saxon ect and thus
            the israel of God and true jews(judahites)?

          • edward budny says:

            http://www.infowars.com/american-history-they-dont-want-you-to-know/ hey ted above is a video link from alex jones he says American history /us constitution came from the swiss and the iriquoi mabey you can research it and do a series on it .im still trying to get u on his show I finally got his messenger link that should help

          • Andrew Patton says:

            Well since Protestantism is of, by, and for the people instead of God, you shouldn’t be surprised.

        • edward budny says:

          Christ jesus/yahshua is king of kings… infact he
          was born a king his kingdom has no end.
          and he shall have dominion in the believers and will subdue
          the earth.study the sovereignity of God my brother

          • stan schmunk says:

            No Scriptures support that statement.

          • stan schmunk says:

            And He said His kingdom is not of this world…

          • “…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.’….”

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

          • stan schmunk says:

            Read it. Specify which Laws you’re referring to Ted. Are they different or more extensive than the Lord’s summary of the 10 words?

          • You read what-my statement above or the booklet I provided the URL to?

          • stan schmunk says:

            Both.

          • You read the online booklet “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant?” in its entirety? How long did it take you?

            If you read it like you said you did, you wouldn’t be asking the question you did. I specify time and again throughout the book that I’m referring to Yahweh’s triune moral law (His Ten Commandments and their respective statutes that explain them, and the judgments that enforce them.)

            I also clarify what I’m not referring to: The Mosaic Covenant’s requirement to keep the law in order to be justified, the sacrificial and other Levitical ordinances fulfilled by Christ.

            Now, a question for you: Do you believe Psalm 19:7-11 and therefore that Yahweh’s moral law is the standard by which everything in society should be ethically evaluated and governed?

          • edward budny says:

            you have to take that in context Christ ment that his kingdom is not political kingdom like herod(the edomite) nevertheless he is a king and he made the believers kings and priest with him what do you do with that rip it out of the bible?God forbid

          • stan schmunk says:

            Did I say that we’re not kings and priests, Edward? Did I say that Christ is not the King? In context He said His kingdom is not of THIS world…

          • edward budny says:

            smuck tell me if he is king(and he is)is he reigning only in heavenly places?or is it also in the believers who are on earth?or mabey your too heavenly minded that your no earthly good.waiting for the rapture

          • stan schmunk says:

            Edward, even Abraham and other heroes of the faith weren’t looking for an earthly kingdom so why are you?

          • edward budny says:

            hey smuck don’t put words in my mouth the kingdom is in you (if your one of his)and then the new heaven and EARTH at the end of time. you seem to me like a contentious fellow

          • stan schmunk says:

            Didn’t put words in your mouth, Edward. Is what I said about Abraham true or not?

        • edward budny says:

          Christ kingdom will grow more and more in this world not of this world(as if it is worldliness and sinful)Christ will take dominion in his timing and it will grow so vast like it never did before then he will relinquish the kingdom back to the heavenly Father then the end will come new heaven and earth

          • stan schmunk says:

            Prove it from Scripture, Edward.

          • edward budny says:

            hey smuck read 1 corintians 15 24-28

          • Edward, please be careful. Stan’s last name is Schmunk, not smuck.

            Comment policy:

            When submitting a comment, keep in mind we have a zero-tolerance policy for the following:…

            4. Discourteous behavior (name calling or rude or insulting remarks directed at another user).

          • stan schmunk says:

            Thanks for showing your true character, Edward. You don’t know Christ do you…BTW, the passage talks about Christ reigning after the end.

          • edward budny says:

            not only are you contentious you dont know how to read in
            context do you. and you set yourself as a judge over me .your
            a white washed tombstone .please do not correspond with me any more

          • edward budny says:

            mr schmunk, please accept my apology for my language(not my stand or beliefs)and yes I am a Christian that’s why im posting this

    • edward budny says:

      most of Israel were not saved cause they tried to save themselves by the law. that is why they failed. those who are saved are saved by grace of Christ that is how Christ kingdom will take dominion over the whole earth first in the salvation of believers then as we serve Christ the king in all areas of life including government.what is so hard for you to understand this is not rocket science

  6. Gregory Alan of Johnson says:

    Which make me wonder how you, Ted, have handled any muni-corp contracts (licensing, certifications) that you, without full knowledge/consent/disclosure, signed in agreement?

  7. donald_hebfour says:

    So, America is the great satan after all…