Comment Policy

By Ted Weiland
Print Friendly

It is our intention to glorify Yahweh as God, King, Judge and Lawgiver and Christ as Lord and Savior. We purpose to advance His kingdom by means of the gospel and His perfect law (Psalm 19:7-9). We hope you will join us and be blessed by participating in this blog.

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

  1. Violence (threats, suggestions, or direct statements promoting violent or threatening acts or sentiments).
  2. Racism (suggestions that one ethnicity, people, or nation is racially superior to another).
  3. Crassness or profanity (any word or phrase considered by courteous society to be profane, including words intentionally misspelled to avoid censure).
  4. Discourteous behavior (name calling or rude or insulting remarks directed at another user).
  5. Entire comments all in caps (a violation of Internet etiquette).
  6. Violations similar in nature to any of these offenses.

Posts violating our policies are subject to censure, and the user may be banned from future participation.

Anyone is welcome to post here, regardless of race, religion, or lifestyle. However, in keeping with the First Commandment (“Thou shalt have no other god besides me”), any promotion or justification for any non-Christian religion, including atheism and cults (such as Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, etc.) and lifestyles condemned by Yahweh’s law (such as homosexuality, women’s liberation, pro-choice, etc.) will be banned from this site.

In keeping with 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 4:11-12, I ask ladies participating on this blog to first procure permission from their head (father, husband, etc.). It is not our intent to usurp their authority. You should go to them first for answers to your scriptural and spiritual questions. Please make your gender known from the onset. This is as much to protect you as to ensure adherence to these passages.

Thank you for helping us maintain a courteous and functional public environment where we can engage in righteous discourse.

  1. Kevin Craig says:

    I think we would have been better of sticking with the Articles of Confederation, so I’m not a die-hard Constitution fan. But I don’t think it’s as bad as you’re making it seem. Am I allowed to defend the Constitution from a Christian perspective on this blog?

    • admin says:

      Kevin, thank you for your response. Obviously, we don’t see eye to eye on this. I see the U.S. Constitution as unequivocally seditious document against Yahweh. I have a difficult time seeing how any Christian can see it otherwise. Not only did the framers no where acknowledge Yahweh, Christ (except perhaps as the paper’s timekeeper), His morality, or His laws anywhere therein, there is hardly an article or amendment that’s not antithetical, if not hostile, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality. For example, Article 6 proclaims the Constitution and all laws and treaties in accordance therewith as the supreme law of the land. If that’s not treasonous against Yahweh and His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9), I don’t know what is.

      The First Amendment’s polytheistic freedom of religion provision replaced the First Commandment’s monotheistic exclusivity. And what’s been the result? In 1789, America was formerly transformed from what had predominately been one united nation under God to a divided nation under many gods. In fact, since Amendment 1’s adoption, America has become the most polytheistic nation to exist, with the possible exception of the Roman Empire.

      As for the Articles of Confederation, granted they were not as bad as the federal constitution; however, they were nonetheless very compromised. Please consider the following taken from Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective”:

      “John Adams confessed to the same humanism regarding the States’ Constitutions:

      ‘It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [the establishment of the States’ Constitutions] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven … it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses…. Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone….’55

      “Following are samplings from some of the State Constitutions:

      ‘ …all power is inherent in the people and all free governments are founded on their authority.’ (Pennsylvania, 1790, Article IX, Section II)

      ‘…no authority shall, on any pretense whatever, be exercised over the people or members of this State, but such as shall be derived from and granted by them [the people].’ (New York, 1777, Article I)

      ‘…all political power is vested in and derived from the people only.’ (North Carolina, 1776, “Declaration of Rights,” Article I)

      ‘…power is inherent in them [the people], and therefore all just authority in the institutions of political society is derived from the people.’ (Delaware, 1792, Preamble)

      ‘All power residing originally in the people and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government vested with authority – whether Legislative, Executive, or Judicial – are their substitutes and agents and are at all times accountable to them.’ (Massachusetts, 1789, part I, Article V)

      “A return to the States’ Constitutions and the Articles of Confederation will not solve America’s propensity for humanism.”

      The following is excerpted from Chapter 23 “Amendment 14: First-Birth vs. Constitutional vs. Second-Birth Citizenship”:

      “Returning to the Articles of Confederation is no more a solution to America’s polytheistic state than is returning to a purer form of constitutionalism. Because none of the States have ever upheld the First Commandment (‘Thou shalt have no other gods besides me.’) nor prosecuted its offenders, they were all polytheistic in practice long before 1868.”

      • Kevin Craig says:

        I’m not sure I have time to respond to every charge against the Constitution, but if I do, will such defenses be contrary to your comment policy?

        • admin says:

          Not at all. I would ask that you address only one issue at a time and please keep it as brief as you can. I’ll try to do the same.

      • Kevin Craig says:

        Thomas Hooker, one of the drafters of the Fundamental Orders (1639), would disagree that references to “We the People” were intended to imply “We the People ALONE and NOT God.” “The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people,” he had said, preaching to them from Deuteronomy, 1.13 (“Take you wise men,—and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you”)

        • Kevin, thank you for sharing your thoughts. However, what Thomas Hooker stated in the early 1600’s regarding “the people” cannot be used to anything regarding what the framers intended with the opening three words of the Preamble “WE THE PEOPLE.”

          Furthermore, despite his preaching on Deuteronomy 1:13, Hooker’s statement that “The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people” is incorrect. The foundation of authority is in Yahweh and His law, period. Moreover, there’s nothing about consent in Deuteronomy 1:13. Instead, this was a nomination of Biblically qualified men in keeping with Yahweh’s foundation of authority.

          “In addition to the continual brainwashing about how fortunate we are
          to have free elections, one of the reasons most Christians believe so
          strongly about protecting their right to vote is few of them have ever
          challenged elections from a Biblical paradigm. Some people attempt to
          use Jethro’s counsel to his son-in-law Moses as the Biblical precedent
          for elections:

          ‘Moreover 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.’ (Exodus 18:21)

          “What is described here was not a popular election; it was a nomination of qualified men for Moses to appoint. An election is not necessary to select Biblically qualified men. Men either are Biblically qualified or they are not. Popularity determines elections; Biblical qualifications determine appointments.”

          For more, see Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” at

          You might also find the two-part audio series “Elections: Man’s or Yahweh’s?” at and T 874 helpful in this regard.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            The quotes I provided (including Hooker’s) support my claim that the “people” and “consent” language was never intended to convert the U.S. from Theonomy to humanistic autonomy. I’ve never seen a quote from any — not one — Founding Father that is contrary, viz., that the U.S. repudiates Theonomy and now embraces atheistic autonomy.

            I don’t understand your election vs. appointment distinction, certainly not in practice. Who would be the future “Moses” to appoint all those for whom we used to vote?

          • I disagree with you that the quotations you provided prove what you say they do. That aside, one thing is for certain, you will not find anything so brazenly humanistic (whether intended or not) as the wording of the Preamble anywhere in the Bible.

            More importantly, the Preamble’s humanistic implications is demonstrated throughout the Constitution in that there is hardly an article or amendment that, in some fashion, is not a rejection of Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality. (For example, Article 6’s claim that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, etc., etc., etc.)

            Humanistic autonomy is principally demonstrated when man legislates (on any level: personal, family, or civil) contrary or in addition to Yahweh’s morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. Man’s “legislation” is itself a rejection of Yahweh’s exclusive claim to legislator (Isaiah 33:22, James 4:12).

            Of course, there’s no direct statement from any of the framers in the Constitution that repudiates Yahweh’s theonomy–THEY WERE POLITICIANS. Moreover, from their distorted view of Yahweh, Christ, and the Bible (see Mohler’s interview with Frazer), they very well might have thought with their “traditions and commandments of the elders” that they actually were representing Yahweh, much like the New Testament Saul did when persecuting and imprisoning Christians.

            If you will take the time to listen to the two-art series “Election: Man’s or Yahweh’s?,” I’m sure you will better understand my differentiation between election and appointment, and, no we don’t need a Moses today to get it done anymore than the Apostles did with Matthias’ appointment in Acts 1.

          • Clint Ufford says:

            I just finished studying criminology for eleven weeks and I will, as a former US Marine with six honorable years to boot, testify to what Ted is saying. the American “law” is as man as it gets.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            If you mean American law is as BAD as it gets, I don’t necessarily disagree, Clint. I’m just saying that what we have today is not what those who ratified the Constitution intended or required.

            I’ve studied law for many years, both man’s and God’s, earned a J.D. degree, passed the California Bar Exam (which I’ve heard is the toughest bar exam in the world), spent thousands of hours in large law libraries, accumulated a personal library of over 10,000 volumes, done a lot of study in Constitutional law and history, and refuse to join the ACLU in violating the Ninth Commandment by falsely slandering the good name of the Framers. Nobody is perfect, and no human constitution is perfect, but we need to be careful when dealing with other people’s character, even the dead.

          • I don’t see anything in Mr. Ufford’s statement that can be construed as libel. I can’t help wonder if you’re therefore not referring to me. If this is true, please quote me where you believe I’ve libeled the framers. If it concerns their Christianity, you might want to first read Dr. Mohler’s interview with Dr. Frazer:

          • Kevin Craig says:

            Down below you say, “Section VIII goes on to make officials “at all times accountable to” the people, rather than to Yahweh.” I am confident that everyone who had a hand in the state constitution would emphatically deny that they intended to say “RATHER than Yahweh.” You added that to the text. That’s not what they said, I don’t think that’s what they intended, and I think that’s the kind of thing the ACLU says about the Founders.If they could travel through time, they would accuse you of violating the Ninth Commandment.
            Frazer does the same thing at times. At one point in the Mohler interview, Frazer says Calvinist social theory is not democratic. But other scholars as notable as Frazer disagree.
            The point is important because nobody denies that Calvin was theocratic. So just because Calvin set forth a representative system, which might be called “popular sovereignty,” does not mean Calvin repudiated the sovereignty of God. Not in any way.
            Frazer says John Adams denied the Trinity in private. Fine. But publicly, his Proclamations were explicitly Trinitarian:
            Legal documents are supposed to be interpreted objectively, not in terms of some alleged hidden subjective intent of the Framer. Objectively, America was still a Theocracy after the Constitution went into effect. There was freedom to improve it, but no mandate to abandon it. The Founders’ posterity abused their freedom and neglected their responsibilities.
            My point is that a “theistic rationalist” could still endorse a TedWeilandist constitution, because of its beneficial social effects, just as the rationalist city council of Geneva could hire John Calvin.
            The problem is not with the Constitution as much as it is those who took an oath to support it and the organic law of this country and then violate that oath by imposing the religion of secular humanism on America, something the Constitution did not in any way require.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            The problem is that “organic law” ALWAYS leads away from Christendom and toward humanism, polytheism, or any other “ism”. God’s law is immutable, set in granite, and therefore, NOT “organic. Whether or not the Constitution required secular humanism, it most certainly expressly FORBADE Christianity as the law of the land. I will reserve organic for my food choices.

            As for John Adams’ public versus private proclamations, they absolutely do matter. The modus operandi of those who have historically sought to infiltrate and undermine Christianity from within, has always been to publicly proclaim one philosophy or plan of action, while privately adhering to the exact opposite. I am not accusing John Adams of this, but we should be diligent in all things, having discernment to see the truth. One’s opinions, writings, conversations, correspondence, and proclamations (both private AND public), must all be viewed as evidences to come to a correct verdict.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            “Whether or not the Constitution required secular humanism, it most certainly expressly FORBADE Christianity as the law of the land.”

            This is just a plain old false statement. Not even implicitly, certainly not “expressly.” Daniel Webster said “Christianity is the law of the land.”

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Daniel Webster is not the arbiter of our status as a Christian nation. For Christianity to be the law of the land. Christian law must be in place. This is not a matter of denominational schisms. Christian law is concrete. Christian law is not a reworking of God’s law under the new Covenant. The same law that was with Adam is still applicable today. The Constitution does expressly forbid Christianity as the law of the land. Although I put no faith in test oaths, the Constitution’s prohibition against test oaths alone prevents the government from mandating that one must be a Christian in order to hold office. Without a government ruled exclusively by Christians, there can be no Christian government, therefore, no Christian nation. You continue to attempt to use man’s law to try to validate your view of Theonomy. How can you claim to believe in Theonomy when you apparently don’t believe in the New Testament’s confirmation of the continuing validity of the totality of Yahweh’s law?

          • Kevin Craig says:

            “The Constitution does expressly forbid Christianity as the law of the land.”

            Where?? Where is this “expressly” mandated? That’s a reckless overstatement.

            “the Constitution’s prohibition against test oaths alone prevents the government from mandating that one must be a Christian in order to hold office.”

            You can make that argument if you want, but I can make a contrary argument, and my argument was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, at least insofar as it declined to strike down such mandates based on Article VI. On the day the Constitution went into effect every state required office holders to be Christian, and if you can quote one person who said that the Constitution prohibited the states from doing this, I’d be interested. There’s no way such a constitution would have been ratified by 13 Christian Theocracies.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            I’m not sure you understand the meaning of the term “organic law.”
            Every political entity has “organic law.”

          • T. Edward Price says:

            That’s where we differ. I am completely sure I understand the meaning of “organic law”. If you are referring to what can be found in Volume One of the United States Code, I am indeed very well aware of its contents, meanings, and applications. In your link you forgot to include mention of the Articles of Confederation, which is also considered part of fundamental law. I thought you surely would have included something we both believe was better than the Constitution.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            I must apologize to you. I read all of the link you gave and saw that the Articles of Confederation were indeed mentioned further down in the article.

            “He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him.” (Proverbs 18:13)

            It appears in this case I am guilty of violating this Proverb. I endeavor to be diligent and judicious in my arguments, but sometimes I fail miserably. In this matter, please accept my apology.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            Apology accepted with appreciation, not because I was terribly offended, but just because my main point in all these posts is that we should not be quite so rash and belligerent. Especially to one another. I recently heard some talking head comment on the fact that Romney never went after Obama with the vigor and passion with which he went after Newt and Rick Perry, fellow Republicans. In my experience, two Christians who oppose secularism and agree on 99% of the Biblical issues will stop fighting the secularists and turn on each other over the 1% difference. In the same way, we criticize Americans in the colonial era who were far more Christian than those that followed.

          • Yes, you’re correct, I did add “rather than to Yahweh” (but not within the quote marks) because that’s the point. Your point would be well made if somewhere in the State Constitutions there was a statement indicating they were first accountable to Yahweh, but there isn’t. The fact is, by the time of the Articles of Confederation, the Christianity of the early 17th century had already become substantially compromised. The language I provided was the language of the day–the language of “WE THE PEOPLE,” from men who were neither Christian nor Deists, some of the same men who also drafted the Constitution.

            You stated, “Frazer says John Adams denied the Trinity in private. Fine. But publicly, his Proclamations were explicitly Trinitarian.” So, it’s okay with you for men to misrepresent themselves to the general public, provided they’re honest with their intimate friends? In one instance, in a letter to Benjamin Rush, in which he identified the doctrine of the Trinity as “Artifice and Cunning” and those who believe in it as “poor weak ignorant Dupe[s],” he requested Rush to burn the letter. (December 21, 1809, letter to Benjamin Rush, in John Adams, Alexander Biddle, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Rush, “Old Family Letters: Copied from the Originals for Alexander Biddle” (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1892, A:248-249.)

          • Kevin Craig says:

            I wouldn’t want to have to defend the theology of the majority of the Founders. I might (if I had the time) show that Adams and others were often critical of clerical demagogues more than the Bible itself, Not just the politicians of the day, but also the clergy were very defective theologically. Often preachers would tell their congregations just to believe what the clergy said, because the clergy were poor apologists and couldn’t support their views Biblically or intelligently. But again, I’m just saying we should be accurate and judicious. I agree that America has been sliding since at least 1761, which is when Adams said the American Revolution began. (I believe the American Revolution was a violation of Romans 13, but that’s another thread!)

          • Adams and others used their often warranted critiques of demagoguery clerics to justify their critiques of the Bible, at least, what in the Bible their rationalistic bent wouldn’t allow them to accept–for example, such as the deity of Christ and other foundational Christian doctrines.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            I’m not saying it’s OK to deny the Trinity in private. But I would say public hypocrisy in such a case is better than open rebellion. What I am saying is that legal documents must be interpreted objectively, in terms of public pronouncements, not alleged private sentiments. Legally, objectively, America was a Christian nation, not a polytheist one.

          • ” I would say public hypocrisy in such a case is better than open rebellion.” Wow! I think you’re digging yourself a deeper hole.

            “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” (Proverbs 27:6)

            The same is true concerning open rebellion versus public hypocrisy. With open rebellion, you at least able to identify your enemy. Your justification of hypocrisy concerns me.

            Alleged private sentiments!?! Your objectivity is becoming suspect.

            America officially and nationally ceased being a Christian nation the moment Amendment 1’s polytheistic provision for the freedom of religion was adopted in defiance of the First Commandment and its judgment, for example as found in Deuteronomy 13. The proof is the pudding: America has since become the most polytheistic nation to exist, except for perhaps the Roman Empire. Replace the First Amendment with the First Commandment and this would have never occurred.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            It is instructive that the less orthodox Founders did not publicly encourage heterodoxy.They also did not require it in the Constitution.

            The First Amendment did not permit human sacrifice, cannibalism, polygamy, and Kali worship (thuggism), nor prohibit the states from criminalizing it, as the Supreme Court has said. It simply prohibits the federal government from making Episcopalianism the state church.

            No proof can be found in the pudding — no matter how inedible — if the chefs did not follow the recipe.

          • “It is instructive that the less orthodox Founders did not publicly encourage heterodoxy.” Yes, it is VERY instructive: THEY WERE hypocritical POLITICIANS, no different from today’s politicians.

            “f we believe the law of WE THE PEOPLE is supreme, then all law that
            contravenes the Constitution, including Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and judgments, is null and void. Reynolds v. United States
            (1879) addressed the Mormon Church’s claim that polygamy was a right
            afforded them under Amendment 1. Because most Americans find polygamy repugnant, the magnitude of Supreme Court Justice Morrison R. Waite’s decision is lost on them:

            ‘Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?… So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land.’ (Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879).)

            Contrary to Matthew 7:21-27 and James 1:22-25, the Supreme Court ruled that a man’s actions can be severed and isolated from his faith and judged illegal according to the Constitution and its supplemental edicts. This precedent paved the way for any Christian action based upon a Biblical conviction – such as preaching against sodomy – to be arbitrarily outlawed in the same fashion. Had the framers established Yahweh’s immutable law and its predetermined morality as the supreme law of the land, polygamy and human sacrifice (and all other issues) would have fallen under its jurisdiction and thereby determined to be either lawful or unlawful.”

          • Kevin Craig says:

            Several times in the so-called Mormon cases the Court said that polygamy could be banned because every “Christian nation” does so. This proves that the Constitution does not prohibit the imposition of Biblical Law.

          • First, I don’t recall ever saying that the Constitution prohibits the imposition of Biblical law. What I have said is that in nearly every article and amendment, the Constitution is itself antithetical, if not hostile, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            If the Constitution permits the States to impose Biblical Law (or better, if the States ratified the Constitution because it permitted them to impose Biblical Law), then how can you say the Constitution is “antithetical, if not hostile” to Biblical Law?

            Or is there some distinction in your mind between the Bible and “Yahweh’s … morality?”

          • “If the Constitution permits the States to impose Biblical Law….”

            Keep in mind there is a wide gap between “permits” and “intends.” To be Biblical and Christian, it would have had to have been the intention of the framers for Biblical law to be the basis of their government and, therefore, to be imposed. Of course, there is no indication of this being true in either the Constitution or the Federalist Papers.

            I rescind my former statement that I don’t ever recall saying the Constitution prohibits the imposition of Biblical Law to this degree: the Constitution permits Biblical law except where such a law is antithetical to the Constitution–such as, for example, stoning and lex talionis.

            “(or better, if the States ratified the Constitution because it permitted them to impose Biblical Law)” Never occurred. My research has never produced anything that would indicate the States were particularly concerned with imposing Biblical law, with a few rare exceptions–and exceptions are indicative of only preferences, not commitments to Yahweh and His morality in all things.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Mr. Craig, greetings in the name of Yeshua. I am sure Mr. Ufford meant exactly what he wrote. He stated the truth quite succinctly; “as man as it gets” means COMPLETELY devoid of God’s morality. Whether or not today’s system is “what those who ratified the Constitution intended or required”, the results are undeniable. Yahweh’s law, and any influence it should have had, are conspicuously absent from the Constitution.

            As for your academic credentials and background, congratulations, and good for you! However, your J.D. gives you standing to practice before man’s bar, not Yahweh’s. I have also spent many hours in large law libraries, though not quite your thousands, and it is amazing how many modern law libraries do not have a Bible. I also have “done a lot of study in Constitutional law and history”, claiming for many years to be a Christian Constitutional Libertarian. Upon further study and prayer, I have since repented of my idol worship. Concerning bearing false witness, I, too, refuse to violate the Ninth Commandment by slandering the good name of Patrick Henry, who was adamant and vociferous in his opposition to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. You are correct in stating that none are perfect. But Yahweh is, as are His commandments, statutes, and judgments. Anything less than God’s standard will ALWAYS result in a law-order that leads to depravity, and ultimately, tyranny. The solution is NOT a return to a flawed Constitution. The very fact that the system which the Framers established could be amended on the whim of an ever changing people, is absolute proof that it is antithetical to Yahweh’s perfect, immutable law. We are as a rudderless ship, on a wayward course, being tossed to and fro on the seas of Humanism, The only way to right the course, is to return Yahweh as Captain, with His perfect law-order as Rudder and Navigator. Then, and only then, will we experience the perfect liberty that can only be found under the jurisdiction of Christian Dominion.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            I agree with most of what you write, Mr. Price. I’ll just point out our disagreements.

            “He stated the truth quite succinctly; “as man as it gets” means COMPLETELY devoid of God’s morality Yahweh’s law, and any influence it should have had, are conspicuously absent from the Constitution.”

            I think that’s an overstatement. See the “Sundays excepted” clause.

            “your J.D. gives you standing to practice before man’s bar, not Yahweh’s.”

            Not true. I wanted to add a line to my oath placing my allegiance to God’s Law above man’s law, and the State Bar would not permit it. See:


            “it is amazing how many modern law libraries do not have a Bible.”

            Name one.

            “Concerning bearing false witness, I, too, refuse to violate the Ninth Commandment by slandering the good name of Patrick Henry, who was adamant and vociferous in his opposition to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.”

            I would have joined him.

            “The solution is NOT a return to a flawed Constitution.”

            I never said it was.

            “The very fact that the system which the Framers established could be amended on the whim of an ever changing people, is absolute proof that it is antithetical to Yahweh’s perfect, immutable law.”

            Another overstatement. First, it takes more than a “whim” to get an Amendment through. But more important, there’s nothing “antithetical” in prohibiting “excessive bail” or “cruel and unusual punishments” as an example. If you can’t cite a verse of Scripture which expressly REQUIRES “cruel and unusual punishments,” then you didn’t speak the truth. That’s my overall objection to this website: overstatement does not, in the long run, aid the cause of Christ.

            “We are as a rudderless ship, on a wayward course, being tossed to and fro on the seas of Humanism, The only way to right the course, is to return Yahweh as Captain, with His perfect law-order as Rudder and Navigator. Then, and only then, will we experience the perfect liberty that can only be found under the jurisdiction of Christian Dominion.”

            I agree, but vigorously stating the truth does not make up for saying that the 8th Amendment is whimsical or “antithetical” to God’s Law.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Thank you for your reply. I will answer your points.

            The “Sundays excepted” clause in no way proves a foundation derived from God’s law, any more than the inclusion of “in the Year of our Lord”.

            It appears my comment on the standing granted by your J.D., might have come across as harsh and sarcastic. If so, I apologize. I certainly meant no insult. I applaud your attempt to set your oath in the proper order. My only intent was to imply that the qualifications to stand before God’s bar, can only be found in His law, as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments.

            In the late Eighties/early Nineties, I spent time in the Law Library of Louisiana (Louisiana Supreme Court), as well as the LSU Law Library (Paul M. Hebert Law Center). Although I could find several books concerning various aspects of the Bible’s influence in law, I could not find an actual Bible. However, I was able to find multiple versions of the Bible at the Tulane University Law Library (a private institution). Perhaps this was an anomaly, possibly even a result of Louisiana’s unique Napoleonic Code.

            As for “cruel and unusual punishments”, that is one of the most egregious aspects of the Constitution. The Eighth Amendment expressly forbids what Yahweh commands.


            The withholding of God’s Biblically commanded judgments in these capital crimes have, in great part, led to the moral decay from which we are suffering. Man’s law considers the death penalty for these crimes to be “cruel and unusual punishment”. Yahweh’s law considers them to be Justice!

          • Kevin Craig says:

            You changed your argument from the Constitution being “COMPLETELY devoid” of God’s Law to God’s Law not be “a foundation.”


            The Bible does not require “cruel and unusual punishments.” Not a single person who signed the Constitution intended that document to abolish capital punishment.

            In any case, I oppose capital punishment on Theonomic grounds:

          • T. Edward Price says:

            My argument has not changed in the least. My position was publicly proclaimed and consistently maintained long before this discourse.

            Regarding the link, it is good to see that the LSU Law Library has a copy of the Bible on hand. However, that in no way disproves my account from over 20 years ago. You asked me to name one law library without a Bible. I named two from my personal observations. I also know that in 1992 the Chief Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court had one copy of the Bible in his chambers, because I gave it to him.

            You are correct that the Bible does not require “cruel and unusual punishments”. It DOES require the death penalty for a handful of crimes. It is man’s law that takes what God commands, and calls it evil. The Eighth Amendment theoretically prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments”. Please tell which is more “cruel and unusual”, lethal injection after 20 years on Death Row, at a cost of $25,000 per year. or swift execution by stoning before the sun goes down. The fact is, we have established “cruel and unusual punishments”, by prohibiting God’s just laws.

            On your opposition to the death penalty, you appear to be in a theological pickle. In your Congressional Issues 2012, your statement, “[t]he problem with capital punishment is not just that the system is imperfect…sometimes the innocent are convicted” is telling, indeed. It is quite apparent that you can not distinguish between man’s law and God’s law. This is what is wrong with law schools. You do not know that you do not know. Yahweh’s law is perfect, immutable, and just. Man’s law is wicked, “organic”, and unjust.

            You go on to say, “[e]ven if we had omniscient prosecutors and jurors, the shedding of blood is an anti-Christian quest”. It would appear that your law school was also without a Bible.

            “For Yahweh is our judge, Yahweh is our lawgiver, Yahweh is our king; He will save us.” (Isaiah 33:22)…”There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and destroy.” (James 4:12)
            Your antinomian viewpoint prevents you from seeing the truth in front of you. Yahweh’s law and man ‘s law are in antipodal opposition to one another. We can not be a Christian nation without Christian laws. We do have an omniscient prosecutor in Yahweh, and it is absolutely a Christian quest to require the shedding of GUILTY blood to avenge the shedding of INNOCENT blood.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            I would describe my viewpoint as “Theonomic” and “Theocratic.” You describe my viewpoint as “antinomian.” I think that’s ridiculous. So you can imagine that when you call the Constitution “polytheistic,” I take it with a grain of salt. I ask myself if the Framers intended to legalize human sacrifice and false religions. I don’t think they did.
            I think the Ninth Commandment requires us to use the words “antinomian” and “polytheistic” more thoughtfully.

          • Being you renounce 1/3rd of Yahweh’s morality as codified in His judgments, you are, at best, only 2/3rds theocratic. Actually, it’s all or nothing when it comes to Yahweh’s moral law–James 2:10, in principle.

            By their own words, the framers were polytheistic (albeit, they never used the word). Furthermore, they were influenced by antichrist Jews to remove the Christian tests in the federal Constitution. Why? So that Jews could serve next to and, in the future, over Christians. This also opened the door for Hindus, Muslims, and other non-Christians and anti-Christians to do the same. Obviously, caring little for Deuteronomy 17:15, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, etc., the framers removed Christian tests as had already been done in Pennsylvania’s State Constitution, influenced by the same Jews from the very same Synagogue. The framers were not only polytheistic, the majority, if not all of them, were not Biblical Christians, and they were in rebellion to Yahweh as their God, King, Judge, and Lawgiver.

          • “The constitutional framers disagreed upon what comprised cruel and unusual punishment. Some of them believed capital punishment itself was cruel and unusual:

            ‘There were some significant voices at the time in favor of abolishing capital
            punishment. Some argued that the success of the new republic should
            depend upon the virtue of its citizens and not on their fear of a harsh penal code, which many saw as the hallmark of tyranny. Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, declared that “capital punishments are the natural offspring of monarchical governments.” Even a conservative like Alexander Hamilton believed that “the idea of cruelty inspires disgust,” and that the death penalty undermined republican values and behavior.’ ( International Information Programs,, “Cruel or Unusual Punishment,” Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights,

          • Yahweh’s civil judgments are part and parcel of Yahweh’s perfect law, described as “altogether righteous” in Psalm 19:7-11. Your opposition to capital punishment is a tacit rejection of part of Yahweh’s righteousness or morality, and being that Yahweh cannot be separated from any part of His righteousness, your rejection of His judgments is a rejection of Yahweh Himself.

            “Every viable, dynamic law contains three integral components: commandments, statutes, and judgments:

            ‘…he [Yahweh] declared unto you his covenant [law], which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments…. And YHWH commanded me [Moses] at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.’ (Deuteronomy 4:13-14)….

            “Without any one of these three components, the law is crippled. For example, modern society has initiated traffic laws, including a commandment against speeding. However, without statutes to explain what constitutes speeding in each particular situation (e.g., an excess of 20 mph in a school zone), the commandment cannot be fully understood or obeyed. Without judgments, the law has no teeth with which to check potential transgressors.

            ‘The judicial law of God given by Moses and expounded in other parts of scripture, so far as it is a hedge and a fence to the moral laws … hath an everlasting equity…. It was ordered that the judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses … be a rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction in their proceedings against offenders.’ The Records of the New Haven Colony (1641-1644)….

            “Christians’ aversion to Yahweh’s judgments is one of the prime reasons Christians have lost dominion. Those who define criminal behavior and dispense judgment clearly rule society. Antinomians’ aversion to Yahweh’s judgments can only mean they believe man’s judgments are superior to Yahweh’s and that non-Christians are more competent to dispense judgment than Christians, which in turn means most modern Christians do not believe “…the judgments of YHWH are true and
            righteous altogether” (Psalm 19:9). They also do not believe “the law of
            YHWH is perfect” (Psalm 19:7), because any law void of its judgments is
            an imperfect law, lacking one third of its indispensable components.
            Abolishing a Commandment’s judgment guts the Commandment the judgment enforces….

            “Antinomian author Roy L. Aldrich makes this very point:

            ‘If the Ten Commandments of the law are still binding then all of the penalties must remain the same. The death penalties should be imposed for Sabbath-breaking, idolatry, adultery, rebellion against parents, etc. To change the penalty of a law means to abolish that law. A law without a penalty is an anomaly. A law with its penalty abolished becomes only good advice.’ (Roy L. Aldrich, “Causes for Confusion of Law and Grace,” Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 116 (July 1959) p. 226, quoted in Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: The Institute for Christian Economics, 1997) pp. 913-14.)….”

            Christ is propitiation for the second death, not the first–including capital punishment for capital crimes–as described by Yahweh and His morality.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            Do you believe that Deuteronomy 21:1-9 should be fulfilled by today’s rulers shedding the blood of a heifer in cases of unsolved homicides? If not, why should blood be shed if the homicide is solved? (Numbers 35:33)

          • Good question. I’ve never considered this before. I’ll have to give it some thought.

            Do you believe Yahweh’s law is perfect and His judgments altogether righteous as per Psalm 19:7-11? Do you believe the law is good as per 1 Timothy 1:8-10?

          • Kevin Craig says:

            I consider myself a Rushdoony-style Theonomist, with a few differences.

          • Doesn’t answer my questions.

            Rushdoony was wrong in his position on the Constitution.

          • Since you don’t believe in capital punishment for capital crimes, what is your position on what should be done with capital criminals, such as murderers and kidnappers?

          • Kevin Craig says:

            Good question. I don’t claim to have a complete answer. I lean toward lifetime indentured servitude with income to the estate of the victim.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Indentured servitude is certainly appropriate for civil crimes, but advocating the same for capital crimes would appear to be withholding God’s judgment. It is difficult for many Christians to grasp the ultimate mercy in His perfectly ordained punishments. I myself was in that camp. But, ultimately, we have to trust that Yahweh’s judgments are required for not only a just, but more polite and civil society.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            I have no authority for indentured servitude as a substitute for the shedding of blood. Obviously there is Old Testament precedent for servitude. All I know for sure is that any attempt to secure atonement through the shedding of any blood but that of Christ’s is an affront to Christ.

          • “I have no authority for indentured servitude as a substitute for the shedding of blood.”

            Thanks for admitting this. Because our only authority comes from the Bible and because you have discarded what our authority declares is the altogether righteous judgment for murder, kidnapping, and other capital crimes, your opinion (which is itself a rejection of Yahweh) will be the best you will ever be able to do in answer to my question. I hope you will see what a precarious position this puts you in with our Authority.

            “All I know for sure is that any attempt to secure atonement through the
            shedding of any blood but that of Christ’s is an affront to Christ.”

            Amen and amen! Yahweh’s judgments have NOTHING to do with securing atonement, any more than keeping His commandments and statutes do.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            The explicitly stated purpose of laws which today are called “capital punishment” is atonement:

            So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.
            Numbers 35:33


          • Atonement is NOT the explicitly stated purpose of laws which today are called “capital punishment,” but only for murder. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with atonement for us, only for the land. Is not the land still polluted by the blood of the one who’s been murdered, regardless that Christ already shed His atoning blood on our behalf?

            If you still intend to look at this as typology for Christ’s atonement, then you’re still required to apply capital punishment to everything else identified in the Bible as capital crimes.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            Even crimes which did not involve the shedding of innocent blood required the shedding of blood to make atonement. That is to say, there are many crimes other than murder in which the perpetrator had to shed his own blood to make atonement.

            Leviticus 20:9,11,12,13,16,27 for starters.

          • None of the these verses say anything about this being done for their atonement.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            Not THEIR atonement; for society.

          • Whether personal or societal, there’s nothing in these verses about atonement.

            You’re trying too hard to eliminate Yahweh’s perfect law’s altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9). Do not overlook, some of the reasons why His law is perfect are because His commandments are pure, His statutes are right, AND His judgments are altogether righteous. Without any one of these three integral components, His law would no longer be perfect. And you have the right to eliminate His judgments, then the next man has just as much right to eliminate His statutes or commandments.

            Society cannot exist without judgments. Consequently, our choice is Yahweh’s altogether immutable righteous judgments or man’s capricious judgments. The latter would include yours, which you’ve already essentially admitted are just that. But what makes yours any better than next man’s?

          • Kevin Craig says:

            The purpose of shedding blood is always atonement.

            Where in Scripture is there any other stated purpose for shedding blood?

          • In a technical sense, I can agree with you. However, the only way for these to be typology of Christ is for the atonement to be for the sinner not the innocent. In these instances, the “atonement” is not for the sins of the capital criminal but for the innocent parties against whom the capital crime was committed.

            I still say you’re trying to hard to eliminate Yahweh’s altogether righteous judgments. Is Yahweh going to do away with 1/3rd of that which is perfect?

            Do you believe stoning and lex talionis were altogether righteous under the Old Covenant?

          • Kevin Craig says:

            I believe stoning and lex talionis and circumcision and animal sacrifice were altogether righteous under the Old Covenant.

            I also believe that God acted nationally and covenantally, and that atonement was needed for the entire covenanted people, none of whom were innocent (sinless), but all of whom needed to affirm their allegiance and responsibility under God’s covenant when even one member of society committed a “capital” crime.

            Conversely, Leviticus 18:24ff says that God would wipe out an entire society because of those whose “blood was upon them” (see the verses I cited from Deuteronomy), even though there were undoubtedly those in that society who had never committed those particular sins.

          • All well and good, but you’ve yet to come up with a Biblical response that if we eliminate Yahweh’s capital judgments for capital crimes under the New covenant, HOW does society decide what should be the replacement judgments and WHO gets to decide how that’s to be determined. In other words, who’s the authority under the New Covenant that replaces Yahweh?

          • Kevin Craig says:

            Imagine that the Old Covenant commanded believers to wear blue shirts. Then the New Covenant says “Don’t wear blue shirts anymore.”

            I’m going to stop wearing blue shirts.

            You might say, “HOW will ‘society’ decide what should replace blue shirts?” “WHO gets to decide how ‘society’ will determine what will replace blue shirts?” “Who will ‘society’ choose to REPLACE God as Lawgiver?”

            I am not “society.”

            I am not going to replace God’s commandment with anything.

            I am not going to wear blue shirts anymore.

            Or to conclude the metaphor, I am not going to shed the blood of “capital” criminals, and I won’t “vote” for anyone who promises to shed any human or animal blood.

            Maybe if I get really good at obeying the commands I understand, God will give me wisdom to discern the next step. (John 7:17)

          • I don’t mean this to be offensive, but this strikes me as a cop out. We’re talking theology, not you personally taking the judgments into your own hands (which except in some very rare instances would be a violation of Yahweh’s law itself). I think it’s a bit irresponsible for you to teach that Yahweh’s altogether righteous judgments are no longer applicable under the New Covenant (based on what, in my opinion, is, at best, shaking or possibly even convenient theology), while at the same time, declaring that you don’t have any idea on what’s to replace them. Of course, you have no choice but to take this position because you know as well as I that there is no Biblical directive on what to do with criminals if your theology is correct, which itself should be enough for you to reconsider your position.

            While disguising yourself as a theonimist, the conclusion to what you’re really saying is that each society has the right to do with criminals (as they define criminals) as they please, which is nothing more than a collective form of “everyone doing what is right in his own eyes,” that is, humanism, that is, vox populi, vox dei.

            I wonder what part of the triune law you think Paul was referring to in 1 Timothy 1:9-10 that he informed Timothy was good (if USED lawfully) for those He described therein? Obviously, the commandments and statutes had had no effect on such people.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Kevin, i would agree with you COMPLETELY, if in fact the New Covenant commands “Don’t wear blue shirts anymore”. However, nowhere does the New Covenant abolish the wardrobe ( commandments, statutes, and judgments). The closest you can come is Ephesians 2:15-16, where we see that only the ordinances were abolished, that is, the ceremonial blood sacrifices; the commandments, statutes, AND judgments remain. The Wardrobe Director is still in charge and following the same script; only the cuff links have been removed. The cuff links were an added accessory, not included with the original blue shirt. In the same manner, the ceremonial ordinances were the part of the law referred to by Paul in
            Galatians 3:17 “And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.”

            Therefore, there is no need for “society” to replace the blue shirts (Yahweh’s perfect, immutable law). The blue shirts (law) are the same that were with Adam. In fact. Cain was guilty of murder and deserving death. This is the beauty of Yahweh’s perfect Justice. The same law that required his death, also required the testimony of two witnesses. This increases the burden of proof, and also serves as a warning against false witness. We see the same concept in John 8:3-11 where the woman caught in adultery is brought to Christ. If you read the text with understanding, Christ was saying “stone her”, if, according to the law, you have two witnesses, and also the man involved, to also be stoned. This was the scribes and Pharisees trying to trap Christ, to no avail. Here we find that Yahweh’s perfect law also has perfect grace and mercy. This is the protection against the wrongly accused being executed. I know this is a major concern of yours, and justly so. How merciful indeed, that occasionally the guilty walks, in order that the innocent not be unjustly condemned.

            So to conclude your metaphor, you will remove the blue shirt (Yahweh’s complete law, including judgments), and replace it with nothing, leaving yourself half-naked, therefore, having no protection, and ultimately dying of exposure. Sounds like an incompetent Wardrobe Director to me. Such naked Theonomy is no Theonomy at all.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            Maybe I should have spoken of a “red” shirt, as in blood.
            As I read the Bible, the only blood which can now secure atonement for a society is the blood of Christ. All Old Testament commands to obtain atonement through the shedding of blood — either animal or human — can be fulfilled/obeyed in no other way than by the blood of Christ.

            I’m still waiting for an answer to my question about Deuteronomy 21:1-9, which requires the civil magistrate to shed the blood of a heifer in all cases of unsolved homicide, in order to make atonement/cleanse society of the pollution of innocent blood. Is this a shirt you would wear?

            Only someone whose allegiance to a “theonomic” paradigm is greater than his allegiance to the Scriptures would require the shedding of animal blood in cases of an unsolved homicide. All sides agree the magistrate must have faith in the blood of Christ — whatever that means.

            Now compare Deut 21:8 and Numbers 35:33. If no animal blood should be shed to secure atonement in the case of an unsolved homicide, why should human blood be shed if the homicide is solved? Why is Christ’s blood inadequate?

          • T. Edward Price says:

            This is quite simple. It is true that only the blood of Christ is sufficient for atonement. However, in the case of Deuteronomy 21:1-9, the land is still polluted. What shall we then do? We must first realize that the case law, in its general equity, is still in force. Only the manner in which we execute judgment has been modified. We still must petition Yahweh to not hold us accountable for this crime. In this passage, it is obvious that such a crime is considered a travesty, taken seriously by all of the land’s citizens. But we must recognize that under the New Covenant, we are no longer dealing with elders sitting at the gates of the city, with the Levitical priesthood presiding as judges. Since Christ’s blood is an everlasting atonement, a Theonomic example would be for the civic leaders of the community, all Biblically appointed, to assemble together, in order to petition Yahweh that the blood of Christ atone for the transgress, therefore removing the pollution from the land. We still have the same law at play, substituting the atoning blood of Christ on a national, as well as personal level.

            By the way, inserting “red” shirt would have been a stroke of genius.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            I think your suggestion for unsolved homicides (Deut 21) is a great start.

            I think that should be our same starting point if we solve the homicide (Numbers 35:33).

            No shedding blood. Only the blood of Jesus.

            That is an extraordinarily controversial proposition, I recognize.

            I think it’s Biblical.

          • Clint Ufford says:

            It really is simple though, if God is not there, which He is not, then it is not going to work. Man CAN NOT succeed without Him. History, especially biblical history proves this time and time again. Our system is designed today by Satan, at least greatly infected by him.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Clint, welcome, and Semper Fi.

          • Clint Ufford says:

            What I learned in criminology and in criminal investigation was that in fact, our Amendments are set up based off man’s beliefs and are designed to be tweaked anyways the government wish’s. Therefor everyone out there claiming this and that about the 1st and 2nd amendment has not read EVERYTHING under the constitution, bill of rights and amendments and statutes. Regardless, man should turn to God for answers and take up and reestablish His legal system because it is perfect, it is trustworthy, it is flawless. Thankfully, I learned enough to know I do not want anything to do with criminal justice. What a hypocritical system.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Bravo! It is truly a mark that you have Yahweh’s law written inside of you. Have you had a chance to read “War is a Racket” by Lt.Gen. Smedley Butler? He is a two time Medal of Honor winner, and the Marine the establishment never tells you about. You can get the book for 3.99 on Amazon, and you can find his famous “War is a Racket” speech on Youtube.

            God Bless and Semper Fi

          • Clint Ufford says:

            I’ve learned a lot about LtGen Butler, never read that book though. I will have to look into it. Thanks. God bless!

          • Kevin Craig says:

            I listened to part one, but haven’t been able to find part 2. I don’t disagree entirely. All I have time to say is that the federal constitution does not (did not) prohibit the states from casting lots to appoint rulers.

            I think you make the same mistake the ACLU and other liberals make: you attach way too much significance to the federal constitution and the federal government, much more than did the States which ratified it. The States intended the real bulk of government to be carried out by the States themselves.

            Would you contend that my buddies and I must cast lots to choose the captain of our bowling team? If we did, and if you were a member of my bowling team, would you allow our bowling team captain to direct the worship of your church, or the appointing of your elders?

            Think of the States as separate churches, who joined together in a confederation to defend themselves. Church A would not want Church B directing the federal government. Church B had different ideas about many things than Church C. Just because you sign up with ADT or Brink’s or some other home security system doesn’t mean you want ADT directing the education of your children.

            Liberals, of course, DO want the feds directing your education, but this was NOT the original intent of the Framers. They were much more conservative and Christian than you and the ACLU give them credit for, and their Constitution did not prohibit the states from being everything you want them to be.

          • Part 2:

            I don’t think I like being compared with the ACLU and other liberals, but I get your point. However, I think it’s you who don’t put ENOUGH emphasis on the federal government. After all, once the pattern was set by the federal government, the States have followed lockstep in almost everything. Even if they didn’t, it just change the fact the federal government’s Constitution is seditious against Yahweh.

            Although not quite as bad, so were the original State constitutions. Even with their Christian test oaths intact, they rejected Yahweh as their
            sovereign. Humanism was already well entrenched. For example, Section V of Massachusetts’ State Constitution reads, “All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them….” This humanistic blasphemy stands in stark contrast to Yahweh’s sovereignty:

            “God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God.” (Psalm 62:11)

            “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” (Matthew 28:18)

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

            Section VIII goes on to make officials “at all times accountable to” the people, rather than to Yahweh. All thirteen Constitutions contain similar language. This religious dualism resulted, in part, from William Blackstone’s popular “Commentaries on the Laws of England”:

            “Sovereignty and legislature are indeed convertible terms; one cannot
            subsist without the other. …[this] natural, inherent right … belongs to the
            sovereignty of the state….” (William Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” 4 vols. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press [1775] 1979) vol. 1, pp. 46-47.)

            Blackstone was correct that sovereignty and legislature are indivisible. However, because Yahweh is the only lawgiver (or legislator), He alone is sovereign. All officials are accountable to Him, not to the people. Any entity (federal, state, or otherwise) that endeavors to make a law incompatible with Yahweh’s law usurps His sovereignty.

            You claimed “…the Framers … were much more conservative and Christian than you and the ACLU give them credit for…” Have you read Dr. Mohler’s interview with Dr. Frazer yet. I’m presently reading Dr. Frazer’s book and everything is documented. The framers, while not many were deists (even Franklin and Jefferson were not strict deists), they certainly were not conservative or Christians–not if your parameters for both come from the Bible. When you see the evidence, I think, even as a Catholic, you’ll retract this statement.

      • Christian Gains says:

        Well “Admin”;

        I’m impressed that you’ve brought the Constitution’s spiritual validity to the forefront of your commentary, as well as to the members comments.

        Unfortunately, I honestly haven’t enough time to do a DEEP PERUSAL of your entire site, as yet, but the first few Article titles do interest me. Let me give you a quick Bio, (to help you know more as to where “I’m coming from”):

        I was Born & raised here in the USA. My Mothers’ first Husband was a Baptist Navy Chaplain (WW II), and they BOTH graduated, from Wheaton College Ill., along with Billy & Ruth Graham.

        So, my initial influence towards Christ was Baptist. But, (when Mom divorced her 1st husband, due to his violent temper, and abuse of me), the Baptist’s stuck by their “DOCTRINE” & threw her out…While, it WAS a VERY “religious” one, it was NOT a VERY good start to my spiritual growth.

        But…20+ yrs. latter, I ran into some Christians who were Bible Believers…NOT “Religionists”, nor “ENDOCTRINAIRES”,…They’s simply studied their Bible, daily, (Old 7 New Testaments), and shared what they learned faithfully, and gladly taught others to do so too. (II Tim. 2:2; and 3:15)…

        Then, (in ’71), I opted to obey HIS “call” into “Foreign Missions”, and spent the next 40+ years “following God” & obeying the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Now I’m semi-retired, (it’s a “calling” you NEVER fully “retire from”, until HE “calls” you to a higher level of commitment)…The Ministries that the Lord led me to were VERY “Non-Denominational”…Again, simply Bible believing, teaching, and obeying brethren.

        I’ve ALWAYS been fascinated by History, {REAL…not propagandistic}, and, therefore I believe that, the “FOUNDING of ‘america’, has some VERY questionable beginnings, AND “fruit”, (even tho we HAVE been HIGHLY BLESSED AND CARED FOR).

        PRINCEPLY, I’m drawn to your site by both curiosity AND my LOVE of TRUTH.

        That said, I must admit that your comments, (if “Ted” is you), at the Eaglerising site, on the recent “Muslim Banning” judgment in Texas, caught my attention, and now, having perused your “National Religious Freedom Day” Article, (in full), here, I find that I AM intrigued…and WILL comment more thoroughly latter.

        Meanwhile, THANKS! And, I pray, that the Lord bless and keep & protect you & yours, through these “Times of Trouble”.

  2. mary holman says:

    With regard to thinking the constitution is not so bad, I was a Christian for many years before I realized how God views sin. A picture of this can be seen in Genesis 3:17-19 as the Lord spoke to Adam after he sinned. To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’“Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
    What Adam did, I feel sure seemed harmless enough to him — he ate the forbidden fruit, which brought death and destruction to his family and to every generation since.
    Regardless of the sin, we must take it seriously.

    Mary Holman

  3. David Hodges says:

    Article 6 of the U.S. Constitition says that all treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution. The treaty with Tripoli says that the United States is not a Christian nation. Use of the term “Christian Constitutionalist” is double-speak spell-casting. Christian Constitutionalism is no more possible than virtuous whoredom.

    • Kevin Craig says:

      The language about the U.S. not being a Christian nation was inserted into a few copies (but not all) of the 1796 Treaty by an apostate chaplain, but it was such an obviously false claim that Congress removed the line the next time the Treaty was negotiated (in 1805). It has never been re-inserted. It is dead meat.
      A century later, in 1892, the Supreme Court of the U.S. re-affirmed its previous declarations that the U.S. is a Christian nation.

      • The Treaty with Tripoli NEVER declared that America as a nation wasn’t Christian. Instead, it declared the United States Government wasn’t Christian:

        “…the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion….” Treaty with Tripoli, of Barbary, Article 11

        “This treaty was unanimously approved by the Fifth Congress and signed by President John Adams. Shortly thereafter, it was printed in its entirety in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers. Samuel Adams (second cousin to John Adams) concurred with the Treaty of Tripoli:

        ‘Your Excellencies, will, I hope, excuse me when I differ from you as to our [the United States Constitutional Republic’s] having a religion [Christianity] in common with you [England]; the religion of America is the religion of all
        mankind. Any person may worship in the manner he thinks most agreeable
        to the Deity; and if he behaves as a good citizen, no one concerns himself as to his faith or adorations, neither have we the least solicitude [care] to exalt any one sect or profession above another.’ (Samuel Adams, letter to the Earl of Carlisle and Others, Harry Alonzo Cushing, ed., The Writings of Samuel Adams: 1778-1802, 4 vols. (New York, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1908) vol. 4, p. 34.)

        “Even David Barton admitted that the Treaty with Tripoli’s declaration is factual:

        ‘…this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government [as opposed to 18th-century America in general]. Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation …, they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment [of
        any specific religion]….’ (David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press, 4th Edition, 1st Printing, February 2005) p. 127.)

        “Professor Gary T. Amos, former law professor at Regent University and the author of Never Before in History and Defending the Declaration, two books regarding the influence of Christianity on America’s founding, agreed:

        ‘The treaty is nothing more than a pronouncement “that ‘the Christian religion’ as a formal institution was not a part of the American government….”’ (Gary T. Amos, Defending the Declaration (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth and Hyatt, 1989) p. 9, quoted in Gary Demar, America’s History: The Untold Story (Powder Springs, GA: 1993 /2008) p. 135.)

        “For obvious reasons, many people attempt to negate this statement in the Treaty with Tripoli:

        ‘Despite the efforts of some Christian leaders to spin-doctor this document, the statement speaks for itself…. Imagine your church saying that it was “not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,” or a member of your congregation telling his neighbor that his own personal faith was “not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” If such words are unfit for Christians and their churches, how are they acceptable in a Christian government? There is simply no context that justifies the statement – other than it being a deliberate denial of Christianity.'” (Christian J. Pinto, “The Church in Secret Societies,” Twenty Experts Advise You on How to Overcome the Most Frightening Issues You WILL Face This Century (Crane, MO: Defender: A Division of Anomalos Publishing House, 2009) pp. 158-59.)

        Excerpted from Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at

        • Kevin Craig says:

          The quote from Samuel Adams proves my point, but with different words in the brackets. The same Supreme Court that said the U.S was a Christian nation would say that England was a Christian nation. But technically, England was an Anglican nation, but America was only a generic Christian nation. The line about “sects” and “worship” proves this. Every single person who signed the Constitution would agree that in America Aztecs are not allowed to sacrifice virgins to the sun god.

          Do we really want a federal government that tells us how to worship?

          • Once again, I disagree with you that the quote proves your point–that is, if I’m correctly understanding what your point is concerning Adam’s quote.

            No one is suggesting federal government should dictate worship. It’s one thing to dictate Christian worship and quite another to sanction and protect any and all religions in defiance of the First Commandment and its judgment, as provided for by the First Amendment. And what has come of the First Amendment’s polytheistic provision for the freedom of religion? Since it’s ratification 1789, America has gone from being predominately one united nation under God to a divided nation under many gods. America has become the most polytheistic nation to exist, with the possible exception of the Roman Empire.

            See “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” at

          • Kevin Craig says:

            Witchcraft and human sacrifice were crimes in every state that ratified the Constitution. It is a mistake in legal and constitutional interpretation to say that the First Amendment prohibited the states from outlawing false religions. No state would have ratified the Constitution had that been the case. That result was not intended by the framers of that Amendment. That idea is a fraud and a sham promulgated by the ACLU, and I don’t choose to join them.

            I certainly agree that the U.S. is today polytheistic and begging for God’s judgment, but everyone who had a hand in ratifying the Constitution would agree with that.verdict, and would be appalled and outraged if they could travel through time and view the country they helped found. They would blame their posterity, and not their Constitution. The Constitution did not REQUIRE that the U.S. become the most evil nation on earth.

          • Sure, the framers had limits–THEY WERE POLITICIANS. However, it is non-debatable that they also knew that Article 6’s ban on Christian test oaths and Amendment 1’s polytheistic provision for the freedom of religion opened the door to Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians as citizens and eventually, as citizens, to rule over Christians in positions of leadership:

            “Although the religious test clause was overwhelmingly approved with
            little discussion at the Constitutional Convention, it was hotly debated
            in several of the States’ ratifying conventions:

            ‘Amos Singletary, … delegate to the Massachusetts ratifying convention, was upset at the Constitution’s not requiring men in power to be religious “and though he hoped to see Christians [in office], yet by the Constitution, a papist, or an infidel was as eligible as they.” …Henry Abbot, a delegate to the North Carolina convention, warned that “the exclusion of religious tests” was “dangerous and impolitic” and that “pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us [and the Senators and representatives might all be pagans].” If there is no religious test, he asked, “to whom will they [officeholders] swear support – the ancient pagan gods of Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, or Pluto?”’….

            “The framers well understood the polytheistic implications of a ban on Christian test oaths. In a letter to the Honorable Thomas Cockey Deye, Speaker of Maryland’s House of Delegates, Luther Martin, attorney-general of Maryland and one of Maryland’s delegates to the federal Constitutional Convention, noted that the convention delegates were generally unconcerned regarding the pluralistic implications of Article 6’s ban on Christian test oaths:

            ‘The part of the system which provides, that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, was adopted by a great majority of the convention, and without much debate; however, there were some members so unfashionable as to think, that a belief of the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that, in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold but some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.’ (Luther Martin, “The Genuine Information, Laid Before The Legislature Of Maryland…,” Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention 1787, entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1838 (Hawthorne, CA: Omni Publications, 1986) pp. 89-90.)

            “Article 6 not only eliminated Christian qualifications for office holders, it paved the way for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists to be presidents, congressmen, and judges. It became the initial means by which America was transformed from a monotheistic Christian nation to a polytheistic one.

            “On both the state and federal levels, Jews were instrumental in the removal of the Christian test oaths and were the first to reap the rewards of these prohibitions….”

            Kevin, you’re correct that the Constitution did not REQUIRE the U.S. become the most evil nation on earth. However, with its rejection of Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His law as the standard upon which government would be based, it was the Pandora’s box that made it possible.

          • Kevin Craig says:

            It is certainly true that there was some “debate” about Art. VI, but that doesn’t prove anything. Only Christians were allowed to hold office in every state that ratified the Constitution, and this was the case until 1961 when the Soopreme Court said otherwise, but NOT based on Article VI. I believe the debate was resolved in favor of the idea that a “test oath” had only to do with denominational loyalty, not Christian vs. non-Christian polytheism.

          • It sure does. It proves the framers knew full well what would come of Article 6’s ban of Christian tests and proceeded with the language regardless. In fact, with Jews being instrumental in its wording, they knew full well what they were doing and the implications long before the States ratifying conventions. Furthermore, doing so was in keeping with their “Christianity” and their ideas on religious tolerance–in defiance of the First Commandment.

            “The federal ban on religious test oaths almost immediately began to affect the States:

            ‘The federal test oath clause apparently had a liberalizing effect on the states. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 contained a much weaker religious test than its constitution of 1776, and by 1793, Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia, and Vermont had removed religious tests from their constitutions. The revision of Pennsylvania’s test oath of 1776 resulted in part from the efforts of Philadelphia’s Jewish community. In December 1783, the city’s one synagogue submitted a memorial to the civil authorities objecting to the requirement that state legislators acknowledge the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testaments. Four years later, Jonas Phillips, a Philadelphia Jew, petitioned the Federal Constitutional Convention concerning the same provision. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 accommodated the Jewish requests, requiring only that state officials acknowledge “the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments.”’35

            ‘In addition to Pennsylvania, various other states, following New York’s example and Virginia’s Notable Act for Religious Freedom of 1785, removed political restrictions against the Jews. Georgia acted in 1789; South Carolina did so simultaneously with Pennsylvania; Delaware removed the bars in 1792; and Vermont a year later. Still other states were slower to respond to Enlightenment currents. For example, the disqualification in the Maryland Constitution of 1776 barring Jews from public office was not removed until 1825. Rhode Island did not secure equal rights for the Jews until the adoption of its constitution in 1842, and North Carolina not until 1868. …[I]t was the federal government rather than the states which provided the most vigorous impetus to the movement.’36

            “Compromise is a journey halfway down the road to surrender. Somewhere along that road, the remaining state constitutions’ religious test oaths were ruled violations of the federal Constitution. The last to hold out was Maryland, but, in 1961, its remaining religious test oath was quashed as well. Since the ratification of the federal Constitution and the eradication of the States’ Christian test oaths, the nation’s laws – including America’s current legislation concerning capital punishment and infanticide – have reflected Talmudic law more than Biblical law.

            “That the States’ Christians test oaths were eliminated should not surprise anyone. In Matthew 7:13, we are informed that ‘wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat.’ Because constitutional power is in the hands of people, it was inevitable the majority of the people (or the courts representing them) would eventually rule against the States’ Christian oaths.”

          • Kevin Craig says:

            You quoted one side of a DEBATE and then conclude that “the framers knew full well what would come of Article 6’s ban of Christian tests.” Bad logic, bad history, bad law. I quoted the other side of the debate, which said that Art. VI of the Constitution only banned denominational tests. My side won the debate, as the Supreme Court admitted in 1961, when it did NOT say that Art. VI prohibited Maryland from excluding atheists from public office. The Constitution permitted the States to exclude non-Christians from office, which they did for 170 years. That they did not do so consistently or persistently is not the fault of the Constitution, but of bad theology and bad public policy, like most everything in America.

          • It only took that side of the debate for the framers to know the potential problem in their wording. Had they been truly Christians, this would have concerned them greatly (wouldn’t it have concerned you?) and they would have amended Article 6 to take care of the problem. The fact is, they were polytheists long before the State ratifying conventions and even the Constitutional convention. This is easily proven by from prime source documents, many of them in their own hand, some of which I provide in Chapter 9 and 11 of “BL vs. USC.”

            Like so many, your research appears baiased–if for no other reason than perhaps to not be accused of siding with the ACLU and their cohorts. Better to side with truth than to smorgasbord the facts, regardless how people might attempt to sully your name and intentions.

  4. Norm Farnum says:

    Excellent dialoge… but it does seem quite apparent, that no matter the quote of any of our “founding fathers”, the bottom line is still Scripture! The U.S. Constitution is a man-made and ordained document full of fault.

    Keep up the good work here!

    • T. Edward Price says:

      Norm, you are absolutely correct. There can be only one standard by which everything must be judged. Systems based upon anything other than Yahweh’s Holy Writ fail the test.

  5. George Rogers Clark says:

    Mr. Craig, Mr. Price and Pastor Weiland; Mary Holman, and my friend Norm Farnum — Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I did not read all of the posts before jumping in, but it is clear there is a lively debate going on here. Furthermore, it is clear I am “out gunned” on many levels. Anything I have to say is mere personal opinion, as I have no claim to any credentials but one: I believe Jesus Christ is Lord.

    As Ted Weiland knows, I am not sure I understand the argument, let alone have any answers, but allow me, please, to just speak from my heart.

    A little over a year ago when I first encountered Ted and the BLvsUSC discussion, my thoughts were: What is this about? We all know God’s law is superior to man’s law, why is there a need for this discussion? Since then, I have read nearly all of Ted’s books, except _that_ one. Hmmmmm.

    However, my resistance to _that_ one may have been a blessing. I came to understand Ted and his mission and his ministry far better, through those other books and a few e-mails. He cannot, he will not surrender his positions on this issue. I applaud him. Where many men can become obsessed with an idea like this, purely on an intellectual basis, I believe Ted Weiland is answering his call, fulfilling his God given purpose.

    Not that he hasn’t studied and prepared. The work he has applied to research, and the volumes of references in each of his books, speaks of his willingness to “pay his dues” in the scholarly sense. And, of course, the Bible is his best reference, as it should be.

    During this year, I have come to realize that Ted’s position is correct. The U.S. Constitution is the platform supporting the gradual erosion of the pillars of Morality and True Liberty. 30 Years ago, my own pastor used to say, “we are in the world, but not of it.” Well, just being in it today hurts. Today, I realize that I love the Lord and I love my country. And I see that my country is going down the tubes unless there is a complete change of course, soon.

    In my humble, uneducated opinion, the course must be set on a return to God’s law, and not above man’s law, but in the complete displacement of man’s law. As long as secular society can continue to pretend that they are doing good, because they believe in the current concept of “the Rule of Law”, Christians do not have a chance. We are already seeing Christianity suppressed by our government and institutions, while secularism and “other religions” are given the nod of approval.

    At the pace America is on, it will not be long before the “Muslim invasion” of other nations will also begin to smother Christian Americans.

    As I said to begin, I have no answers, but I am not unarmed; I can pray: “Lord send a revival, and let it begin in me.”

    Thank you for the patience to hear me out. Carry on.

    • Thanks George! We should all be praying, like never before. Blessings!

    • T. Edward Price says:

      Welcome, Mr. Clark. Any friend of Norm is worth knowing. I’ve read some of your blogs. I adamantly disagree that you are “out gunned”. I feel that distinction belongs to me. As you well know, this subject is highly polarizing and controversial, especially among those claiming to be Conservative Christians. Some, such as LDS, even consider it blasphemous. It’s certainly not for the weak at heart. However, it is a subject whose time has come. Ted has been tried by fire in this debate the past few years, and we are much better off as a result. If possible, please pass this site on to others, that this topic gets the exposure it deserves.

      Yahweh Bless.

      • George Rogers Clark says:

        Thanks, Mr. Price. Ted’s dedication to purpose made me believe I had to keep trying to see the truth. “One-eighty” pretty well describes my journey the last year, but the final decision was only reached about a week ago. Really! Ted knows I was fiercely clinging to my constitution. It is hard to accept when you have been deceived, as I was.

        There is a “category” in two of my blogs called, “referrals”. It is a place where I write a short blurb to introduce other content I feel is important. A link is included, of course, to that other content. You can expect to find a great deal of Ted’s work there, very soon. Blessings.

    • Norm Farnum says:

      Excellent statements, George. I appreciate anyone with a heart for the King of kings, and a Christian government with the sole purpose of serving Yahweh and His will.

      I will reiterate my personal sentiments in one of my favorite songs, written in 1909 by Frederick J. Gillman:

      God send us men whose aim ’twill be
      Not to defend some ancient creed,
      But to live out the laws of Christ
      In every thought and word and deed.

      God send us men alert and quick
      His lofty precepts to translate,
      Until the laws of Christ become
      The laws and habits of the state.

      God send us men of steadfast will,
      Patient, courageous, strong and true,
      With vision clear and mind equipped
      His will to learn, his work to do.

      God send us men with hearts ablaze,
      All truth to love, all wrong to hate;
      These are the patriots nations need;
      These are the bulwarks of the state.

      If they were valid then, they are much more so today!

      • T. Edward Price says:

        Would to God that there were more hymns centered on Yahweh’s “will be done in earth, as it is in heaven”, instead of “This world’s not my home, I’m only passing through”. This song should truly be our national anthem. I was stirred to tears the first time I heard you and your wife sing it 18 years ago, and it evokes the same response to this day. If ever there were a time for this song to be offered up in every church and assembly in America, that time is now.

      • Norm, please provide to everyone here where they can order your family’s music. Any chance they can listen to your rendition of this song online?

      • George Rogers Clark says:

        Thanks, Norm. I hope I can hear it sung someday. Truly, this is what our nation needs today.
        “God send us men with hearts ablaze” — Sometimes I think that is me. Such passion I sometimes feel. However, I must always be careful. Sometimes I fear I might become a “misguided missile.”

      • says:

        Now I love this. this is what is in my heart
        Not to defend some ancient creed,
        But to live out the laws of Christ
        In every thought and word and deed.
        those words resonate in my soul they make my chest tremble.
        For me it is impossible but with god all things are possible.

    • George and everyone else, as challenging as are the lyrics below, they’re even better when you hear them sung by Norm and his family. I recommend their music to one and all.

  6. George Rogers Clark says:

    A comment in, “Today’s Mount Carmel Christians”, posted by “S.F.”, closes with this: ” I am not Solomon. I don’t have the answer, other than to do what you are doing, and that is keep making folks uncomfortable with what the WORD really says.”

    BOOOOM ! A Direct hit.

    Mr. Price, Ted, others…. Is not that exactly what Ted is doing? He is making folks “uncomfortable,” just like Yeshua said He was doing, and would do? But “uncomfortable” is just another way of saying, “awake, agitated, and focused.”

    The Great Deceiver has a skill of putting people to sleep, causing them to comfortably accept things they should be agitated about. Another of his tricks is distraction or misdirection. The deceived are more useful to him when they are comfortable.

    Christian children cannot have their group meeting at school any longer…. Ho Hum, back to sleep, nothing happening here.

    One of “Man’s Law’s,” on the books for decades, is allowing infanticide. Political careers have been built on defending a mother’s right to “choose.” A madmen chooses to kill 20 children in Connecticut. Let’s blame it on the guns he used, not the evil possession within him.

    To make my point clear: The Constitution, We the People, the precious “Rule of Law”; these things are held sacred by most secular-humanists and many, many Christians who have been deceived, as I was. It makes them uncomfortable when their sacred ideals are shown to be tainted, corrupted, and actually contrary to the peace and harmony they think they are seeking. Most of mankind hopes for, and often seeks, utopia. But it is a false promise of an evil deceiver. Utopia is not within man’s grasp. Man’s only hope of utopia is in Yahweh.

    By attacking their comfort zones, their sacred ideals, Ted is waking people from their deception and misdirection induced sleep. At first there is silent resistance; then there is agitated disagreement. But when an honest and open mind examines the fresh perspective, something happens. When the lights came on for me, a short time ago, I did not even have a eureka experience. I just humbly bowed my head and thanked the Lord for another revelation.

    S.F. said, “uncomfortable with what the WORD really says.” The Word did NOT tell us to sit by comfortably while the law of the land authorizes infanticide.

    “Lord, send a revival, and let it begin in me.”

  7. says:

    Spot on! The events leading to the mass shootings we witness are a result of a decaying society. Thanks for writing the truth–Heaven knows the media wouldn’t dare touch it.

  8. Norm Farnum says:

    Wow! What a dialogue — what a debate! I’ve been away for a few days and had much to catch up on this evening…

    I really appreciate the vigor on both sides of the prevailing issue here being discussed, and applaud the overall spirit of Christian debate demonstrated (unlike several other blogs I’ve visited).

    I have to say that my own convictions regarding the perfection of Yahweh’s altogether righteous laws, statutes & judgements, resonate with the evidence presented in favor of His Divine Right and Authority, in contrast of man’s laws & untold fickle practices, ad infinitum.

    May our Heavenly Father bless & direct each of us as we seek to uphold His Perfect laws, statutes and judgments.

  9. Sapient1 says:

    Good afternoon Ted

    I have received a number of inquiries of late regarding this site…so, I need to ask a few questions so I can respond correctly.

    You said, for example: “We believe the Bible, as found in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, is the literal Word of God.”

    Good word–literal.

    First: Do you consistently interpret Scripture literally–ie use the literal, historical, grammatical method of hermeneutics rather than allegorical? If not, why, and where?

    Second: If Scripture is God’s Word, how then, do you also say of yourself and this site, “We do not claim perfect doctrine…” –doctrine of course, being the systematized teaching of Scripture on a particular topic.

    Would you mind if I ask just which doctrines you are referring to that you sense are less than perfect, ie inconsistent with what God said in His PERFECT Word?

    I ask this because, as I am sure you know, if you are knowingly perpetuating false doctrines in the name of God, that would make you a false teacher / prophet, and the Law you espouse has much to say about that (see Deut 13). If you are espousing other than what God said in His name, do you accept that as your judgment under the Law? Is this not False Witness?

    More specifically, you said “We believe Yahweh’s laws are still in effect under the New Covenant, not for justification, but for sanctification and as a means for His
    people to rule society.”

    Since this is central to your theory, I am going to challenge you to justify that belief via Scripture…and in particular why that is a near exact contradiction to what Paul wrote in Galatians:

    If you cannot justify it, are you not now, again, placing yourself in the very circumstance that Paul addressed with the Galatians who were seeking to be sanctified by the Law:

    “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?”

    Of course, as I am sure you know, Paul branded that bewitching view “another gospel” and anathema–a curse that was never lifted.

    And finally, are you not precisely contradicting the admonitions of the New Testament, of which 2 Peter 2 is an example:

    “13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.”

    …and teaching others to disregard precisely that?

    So, I would very much like to hear your justification for your beliefs.

    God bless

    • Sapient, I’ll be pleased to continue this dialogue (as time allows) under the following conditions:

      1) Identify yourself by your real name and more about yourself.

      Are you a Christian?

      If you claim to be a Christian, what denomination (if any) are you connected with?

      If not a Christian, are you an atheist, agnostic, or what?

      Are you a pastor?

      And any other pertinent information that might be helpful

      2) Identify who (not by name but in general terms, congregants of yours if
      your pastor, visitors to your blog, or ?) and how many people have contacted you about this site.

      3) How these people have learned about this site, if you know?

      4) Why they are contacting you about my site?

      To protect your personal information, if you would prefer to continue this
      conversation via email, you may contact me at


    • Sapient, I’ll be pleased to continue this dialogue (as time allows) under the following conditions:

      1) Identify yourself by your real name and more about yourself.

      Are you a Christian?

      If you claim to be a Christian, what denomination (if any) are you connected with?

      If not a Christian, are you an atheist, agnostic, or what?

      Are you a pastor?

      And any other pertinent information that might be helpful.

      Identify who (not by name but in general terms, congregants of yours if
      your a pastor, visitors to your blog, or ?) and how many people have
      contacted you about this site.

      3) How these people have learned about this site, if you know?

      4) Why they are contacting you about my site?

      protect your personal information, if you would prefer to continue this
      conversation via email, you may contact me at


      • Sapient1 says:

        Thanks Ted

        First, I want to thank you for the offer to preserve
        my personal information with an email conversation. Really, I do
        appreciate it. Security is no small thing. Thanks.

        However, my
        using an internet persona not only protects my family and I personally,
        it has an additional benefit of allowing us to carry on this
        conversation in the same public forum where you present your claims /

        I suggest that your readers deserve to be privy to
        this discussion as to whether or not what you present here as God’s word
        is in fact so..

        As for me, yes, you can rest assured that I am indeed a born again Christian. I have been a Bible teacher for many years.

        said, as you know, denominations, official positions, information about
        who contacted me, etc matter not one bit on the question at hand, and
        that is whether what you teach as God’s word is in fact Biblical or
        not—and THAT is the question.

        So, if you don’t mind, lets just go ahead and discuss that issue rather than get side tracked.

        God bless

        • I do mind, to a point. I will forgo your personal name. However, I would ask you to answer #2-#4 before preceding.

          • Sapient1 says:

            Hi Ted

            The several (two or more) people who have contacted me are personal friends and / or Bible students.

            I really couldn’t say how they found this site. As I recall it began with an article you wrote elsewhere–godfatherpolitics I think.. I assumed they “googled” from there to here.

            As to their concerns, all of them suspected yours was a significant twisting of Biblical doctrine.

            Hope that helps.

            All of this, of course, is superfluous as to the issue—whether what you present is Biblical.

            I invite you to defend what you say.
            God bless

          • Thank you!

            Okay, let’s begin with another question, please: Is the doctrine you teach perfect in all respects? We know the Bible is Holy-Spirit inspired and, thus, infallible. What I want to know is: Is everyone of your interpretations of what the Bible teaches perfect?

          • Sapient1 says:

            Hi Ted

            While I appreciate friendly banter as much as anyone, the issue is NOT my doctrine but yours. So far, I have not made doctrinal claims. You have–and big ones.

            I am challenging you to defend the claims you are making, from the very Bible you say provides them.

            One central claim to your thesis is this: “We believe Yahweh’s laws are still in effect under the New Covenant, not for justification, but for sanctification and as a means for His people to rule society.”

            Those are your words, not mine.

            If you purport this to be Biblical, then I am challenging you to justify that belief via Scripture…

            If you cannot, well and good–then just label it as your opinion rather than God’s word.

            We’ll get to the “as a means for His people to rule society” later…(heads up)…

            God bless

          • Like it or not, it is also about your doctrine because I just made it so. If at anytime, you don’t like the way I conduct my side of the conversation, you can bail out.

            If you intend for us to proceed with this discussion then a simply “yes” or “no” will suffice as to whether you view your personal doctrine as perfect.

          • Sapient1 says:

            Hi Ted

            Thanks for a great question…..

            …and BTW: I can understand why you would hesitate to defend your assertion that Christians are sanctified by keeping the Law. The whole book of Galatians was written to refute just that idea….and as I am sure you know, Galatians was Martin Luther’s “smooth stone” slung to slay the Romanism Goliath in 1517 …a Romanism that, incidentally, advocated much of what you are advocating here.

            You ask if my personal doctrine is perfect. Of course not….

            But, I can say that cheerfully and without fear because it illustrates the difference between living under Law as you advocate, where perfection IS indeed required of someone, including their doctrine, conduct, attitude, etc…and grace that has set us free from that Law….

            And THAT Ted is the whole point–neither you, I, or anyone else can keep the Law….

            “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”…Jesus said.

            If all Israel, we, or anyone needed was written Law, carved by the finger of God in stone, under penalty of death to make us better, then we would all be perfect by now, and more, Christ died needlessly.

            Here, is the Apostle Paul in Colossians 2:

            “20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.”

            God bless

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Sapient, I would humbly suggest that you take the time to (re) read Ted’s position on the law. He has never once said that we are under the law, and not grace. It appears you are constructing a false dichotomy (law vs. grace) where there is none. No longer being UNDER the law does not negate the ever-abiding valdity of the law. You have accused Ted of distorting Scripture, and teaching a doctrine that resembles Romanism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Right off the bat, you have misrepsented Ted’s teachings. Either you haved failed to understand, or you have decided to misrepresent. This is why it would be beneficial to know your identity. You have the right to remain anonymous. But please be aware that you will be observed with strict scrutiny. That is not a threat. We should ALL hold one another to the highest standards. Ted has nothing to hide. But, if you are truly interested in understanding what he believes, promotes, and teaches, I suggest that you humbly set aside whatever presumptions you may hold, and you might find very enlightening discourse. At the end of the day, you may still disagree. And if you can show, from Scripture, Ted to be in error in any way, he will be the first to humbly thank you. Will you exhibit the same demeanor?

          • Sapient1 says:

            Hi T Edward

            Thanks for the response.

            No offense meant, but I was discussing with Ted what HE wrote and meant by what HE wrote–the horse’s mouth thing.

            I will be glad to have a discussion with you and the things you write, etc…but I don’t know them.

            Are you, for some reason, now speaking for Ted, this site, and his writings?

            And BTW—how could I be misrepresenting what he said when I quoted him?

            God bless

          • T. Edward Price says:

            I would never dare presume to speak for Ted, or ANYONE, other than myself. You ask how you could misrepresent Ted by quoting him. How’s this for starters: “[I]t illustrates the difference between living under Law as you advocate, where perfection IS indeed required of someone, including their doctrine, conduct, attitude, etc…and grace that has set us free from that law…”.

            Would you please show where Ted has EVER advocated living “under the law”, vs abiding BY the law? There is a great distinction between the two. Remember, you said you were only quoting Ted. There might be some confusion in your understanding of the law. Scripture does NOT pit law against grace, and neither should we. Law AND grace were both in the garden with Adam. Grace does NOT set us free from the law; grace, instead, sets us free from the CURSE that comes from being UNDER the law. Are you advocating
            that the Law was abolished by Christ at the cross? This helps to determine your [mis] perception of context.

            If you are claiming to merely “quote” Ted, then at least show the
            common courtesy to CORRECTLY quote him in ALL instances.

            In Christ
            Eddie Price

          • Sapient1 says:

            Good morning Eddie

            Thanks…let me clarify a few things…fair enough, and then I am going to give you full opportunity to correct my misunderstandings?

            Re: “I would never dare presume to speak for Ted, or ANYONE, other than myself….”

            Actually, you did: “And if you can show, from Scripture, Ted to be in error in any way, he will be the first to humbly thank you.”

            And this: ” But please be aware that you will be observed with strict scrutiny.”

            Eddie—those are YOUR words. Just WHO is the observer there…and if its not someone associated with this site…so what?

            Re: “If you are claiming to merely “quote” Ted, then at least show the common courtesy to CORRECTLY quote him in ALL instances.”

            I am not sure just what that means as it was a direct quotation of a bullet point…but I do try to give common courtesy.

            FWIW: while we are on the topic of common courtesy, calling anyone who disagrees with his Biblical interpretation “Antinomian” is quite a stretch…logically a straw man.

            Now…I asked a question based on something specific that Ted said..and here it is again:

            ” 5 We believe Yahweh’s laws are still in effect under the New Covenant, not for justification, but for sanctification and as a means for His people to rule society….”

            You suggest that I fail to understand…so, I will let you explain it.
            How are born again Christians to use “Yahweh’s Laws, that are still in effect…for sanctification and as a means for His people to rule society?”

            Two points:

            –Yahweh’s laws that are in effect (might want to clarify jsut what Laws you are referring to) and how they are to be used for sanctification….

            ..–how those same laws are to be used as a means for His people to rule society.

            And needless to say, I assume you will back that up.
            God bless

            God bless

          • T. Edward Price says:

            You might want to reconsider your moniker. Ted has established a public record of being quick to humbly accept correction, when shown by Scripture to be in error. Anyone with discernment would have known that. My statement in no way implies speaking in his stead, or with his authority. I was merely pointing out that which is glaringly obvious.

            As for your comments being “observed with strict scrutiny”, why would you, as a Christian, want it any other way? Again, I do not speak for Ted, or this site. Those who frequent here tend to be more discerning “than your average bear”. We should all be more willing to exhibit the attitude and diligence of the Bereans, and examining all that we are taught with “scrutiny”. Surely you don’t object to that?

            You also stated: “FWIW: while we are on the topic of common courtesy, calling anyone who disagrees with his Biblical interpretation “Antinomian” is quite a stretch…logically a straw man.

            You just appeared under a cloak of anonymity, yet are already making false accusations that are easily refuted. I happen to disagree with Ted on certain Biblical interpretations. Would you please kindly cite where Ted has EVER branded me as antinomian? You clearly said ANYONE. There are also many here who disagree with Ted on certain issues, but have NEVER been called antinomian, merely for their disagreements. Ted has clearly only referred to individuals or institutions as antinomian, those who have either admitted, or shown by their actions, to be, oh… whats the word…oh yeah, that’s right… ANTINOMIAN! Straw man, INDEED!

          • Sapient1 says:

            Hi Eddie….

            First of all, thank you for all your responses.

            Let me say, as I mentioned, was that my purpose for coming to this site was to ascertain whether TED was presenting false doctrine, and then, if he was, to ascertain whether he was doing so knowingly or unknowingly.

            Since I am in a dialogue with him directly in this regard, and as you state you cannot speak for him, I am not certain just how I might be of service to you other than your reading his and my dialogue.

            However, that said, if you believe that I can be of some service to you, I certainly want to do so…truly.

            Re: “You might want to reconsider your moniker….”

            My friend, let me assure you if that is all that stands between you and taking this issue of false doctrine seriously, then you name the moniker you will listen to when it tells you that things like preterism, post millennialism, supercessionism, reconstructionism, kingdom Dominion, etc are seriously, even grossly, un biblical.

            It is literally impossible to arrive at those positions without some serious twisting of Scripture…

            Until then, the complaint is an ad hominem side issue isn’t it?.

            God bless


          • Hesitant? Hardly! You presume too much and by doing so you’ve now judged my motives and, therefore, my heart–something only Yahweh knows.

            I’m taking your first submission and addressing it a point at a time in the order and by the means I choose to. You’re the one who raised the “issue of perfect doctrine.”

            With an audacious “handle” like Sapient (“possessing or expressing great sagacity or discernment,” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1975), I really wondered how you would answer that question. I’m pleased to find you admit that your personal doctrine is not perfect. Therefore, with Matthew 7:1-5 in mind, “Would you mind if I ask just which doctrines you are referring to that you sense are less than perfect, ie inconsistent with what God said in His PERFECT Word? I ask this because, as I am sure you know, if you are knowingly perpetuating false doctrines in the name of God, that would make you a false teacher / prophet….”

            By the way, we’ll eventually get to it (depending on how you respond at any given time), but you’re wrong about Galatians. Galatians was written to refute justification by the law, not sanctification by the law. Justification and sanctification are not the same thing. The words “sanctify,” “sanctification,” and “sanctified” cannot be found in Galatians, whereas “justify” and “justified” are found eight times in Galatians.

          • Sapient1 says:

            Good morning Ted

            Hope you had a good evening.

            Re: Perfect doctrine

            Ted—rest assured that is NOT intended to be a hard question. I am certainly NOT talking of you or any finite human, myself included, affirming we know perfectly the totality of the infinite mind of God, or that we are the final word on the interplay and
            implication of every jot and tittle. Only One has ever been able to honestly say that.

            If such was required to be a teacher of God’s Word, who show themselves approved, then no human ever would be.

            So, “perfection” of doctrine in that absolute sense is NOT
            what I am talking about…

            What I am trying to find out, however, is precisely what YOU
            mean when you say “We do not claim perfect doctrine…”—doctrine–didaskalia—teaching, concepts, etc. THAT is what I am asking about, and nothing less.

            While all of our “doctrine,” teaching / concepts, assuredly lack “perfection” in that absolute sense, that does NOT mean that those who present themselves as teachers of Scripture are excused from presenting, sound and healthy doctrine derived faithfully from the Word—doctrine that comprise the unified
            faith once and for all delivered to the saints, the very faith all of us are commanded to be instructed in, to contend for, to exhort others in, and to refute those who contradict.

            My question to you, in the context of what you said on your website, “We do not claim perfect doctrine…” is not about what you don’t know as a finite human being, but what you do know. When you say “We do not claim perfect doctrine…” then I ask you, what DO you claim about the doctrines you present and the inferences you draw from them?

            You do indeed claim that they are derived from Scripture–

            So there is no mistake: I am asking you if are there doctrines that you present here as Biblically sound, that you KNOW in fact, are not? –ie doctrines that you KNOW are not derived from good exegesis (reading out) of Scripture, but rather can only be derived when squeezed out of Scripture via eisegesis
            (reading into), by distortions, omissions, cherry picking, allegory, etc?

            Again, I am asking not about what you don’t know but what
            you do.

            Ted, let me assure you, on the one hand, that if you say what
            you present is derived from a good faith effort at exegesis of Scripture, then I accept that you honestly believe that,
            whether it is actually good exegesis or not. That is one kind of issue.

            But, make no mistake, there is an “on the other hand,” –another kind of issue, and that is where that good faith exegesis is not present, but rather a knowing and conscious twist, a knowing omission, and knowing distortion of God’s word, in order to make it say what it does not, yet to still do so in His Name.

            That would be no small thing as I am confident you know.

            So, I am asking you to publicly bear witness, with full responsibility before God and His people, that you are
            not knowingly, intentionally distorting, twisting, etc His word in order to make it say something it does not.

            We can come back to Galatians and what is says about sanctification in a bit.

            God bless


          • And, what I’m trying to convey to you is what a dumb question you’ve now asked twice. Being that you’ve admitted that your doctrine is not perfect (as I did), I ask you to answer your latest dumb question and, in fact, insulting insinuation yourself: “So there is no mistake: I am asking you if are there doctrines that you present here [or anywhere else] as Biblically sound, that you KNOW in fact, are not? –i.e., doctrines that you KNOW are not derived from good exegesis (reading out) of Scripture, but rather can only be derived when squeezed out of Scripture via eisegesis (reading into), by distortions, omissions, cherry picking, allegory, etc?”

            A genuine apology is in order. While you’re at it, you also owe me an apology for judging my heart for suggesting that I was intentionally being evasive on your questions regarding the law. Anything else and the discussion ends here. In fact, I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Price. Email your real given name to me, so I know who I’m dealing with and then we can continue this discussion on this forum. Providing me your name is no threat to you or your family.

          • Sapient1 says:

            Hi Ted

            Re: “And,what I’m trying to convey to you is what a dumb question you’ve now asked twice….”

            Sir, the odd thing is that what you call “a dumb question” regarding false teachers and false doctrine, Scripture calls imperative for us to ascertain….the easiest way is to simply ask…which I did…and have yet to get a straight answer.

            Let me assure you that I can and will gladly answer that “dumb” question with ease and without hesitation. In fact, as a Bible teacher I have a responsibility to do so. Comes with the territory.

            So, NO I do not present something as Scriptural that I know is a distortion and twisting of it.

            Now, be it intentional or not, YOU still have not answered that vital question, and label it as “dumb.”.

            At this point, I do not know what benefit there would be in continuing…with things remaining undeclared as they are.

            God bless

          • You’re right. Your posts reek of your “handle’s” meaning. I should have followed my first instinct with you to begin with.

          • Marys Image says:

            1) His “handle” means sage or wise…
            2) What was your “first instinct”?

            a. To evade or to engage in a meaningful discussion?
            3) How is one suppose to learn if the conversation turns slightly derogatory or rather demeaning?


          • Marys Image says:

            Why would a name other than what was presented to you, in any way affect the truth of ones statement?

            I suggest (from a viewers perspective) it smacks of evasiveness, when a simple answer would suffice?


          • T. Edward Price says:

            Mary, I don’t know what Ted’s first instinct was, but I can assure you that mine was distrust. Anyone with discernment could plainly see that “Sapient” was dishonest, attempting to attack Mr. Weiland from his hiding place lurking in the dark shadows of anonymity. This is a blatantly overt Christian site. While privacy is respected, one who attacks without the common courtesy of revealing his identity is a coward. He claimed to be questioning Mr. Weiland at the behest of others, not personally knowing Mr. Weiland’s beliefs. However, in a response to me, he made accusations about Mr. Weiland’s views, calling them unbiblical. Why not ask Mr. Weiland about these views? Where did he discover these doctrinal “beliefs” promoted by Mr. Weiland? They aren’t to be found here. So he misrepresented himself as someone unfamiliar with Mr. Weiland’s ministry. And he misrepresented what Mr. Weiland actually DOES believe. The only conclusion anyone with discernment or “wisdom” could develop, is that “Sapient” was a cowardly, would be adversary seeking to undermine and derail a ministry of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

            Since this site is devoted to proclaiming the gospel of Christ, and serving His Kingdom, everything advocated and promoted here is done openly, publicly, and in the light. There is no need for those advocating for the Kingdom to hide behind an anonymous moniker, or to have their profiles set to private, hiding from the light of truth.

  10. Daniel S Krynicki says:

    Any article that is inimical in intent with the Unanimous Declaration, the Preamble, and the Bill of Rights can be revoked or nullified through the amendment process. Article VI is one of the more egregious inclusions and therefore should be revoked. This, however, does not demand that we throw out the the baby with the bath water. Our Constitution could have been a summit of human achievement had the founders all been Christian Bible believers following all of Christ’s commandments. So let us deliberate to amend the Constitution in a way that will conform with the LORD’s commandments, statutes and judgements.

  11. Jonathon says:

    Do you guys condone execution for the activities which the Mosaic Law states should be punished by execution (bestiality, homosexuality, etc.)?

  12. Stephen Becker says:

    If Rom.13 is not making reference to secular government, but rather to “ministers of God”, the what “ministers of God” were ruling in Paul’s day, since he apparently is not referring to the Roman government.

  13. Atossa says:

    @ Ted Weiland

    Why do you condemn racism like all the liberal cultural marxist globalists ?

    The entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation is about God’s relationship with one race of people, Israel, whom God chose from all the people of the earth to be a special chosen people separate from all others [Deuteronomy 7:6.] God’s law forbids the mixing of different kinds and diverse seeds [Leviticus 19:19.] Ezra 9:2 condemned the sin of mingling of the holy seed of Israel with foreigners during the Babylonian captivity. In short, the God of Israel is racist and the Bible is racist. Racism is our God-given instinct to reject those who are foreign to ensure we preserve the holy seed of Israel and reproduce our own kind. God’s Israel Christ-bearing people.

    • Ted Weiland says:

      The Bible is certainly racial, but it’s not racist.

      The term “racist” implies racial supremacy and therefore white supremacy as if Israel somehow has something to boast of in her genetics instead of Yahweh who called her. Of all people, Israel, who were given benefits and blessings no other nation received, nonetheless rejected her God and husband time and again. She has nothing racial to boast of. Israel’s boast is in Christ, our Redeemer and Savior!

      That said, it’s true that Yahweh expects her to be separate which also means she’s to shun interracial relationships or alleged marriages. See Scroll down to heading “Forbidden Lineage and Interracial Relationships.”