Print Friendly

I’m often asked, “Why is the Constitution such a big issue to you?” My initial response is, “Why isn’t it a big issue to you?” Let me provide a short list of reasons why the Constitution and what it represents should be important to all of us:

  1. It defies Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality in nearly every article and amendment.
  2. It’s the reason America is teetering on the precipice (or, actually, already falling into the chasm) of moral depravity and national destruction.
  3. Every problem America faces today can be traced back to the fact that the framers failed to expressly establish a government upon Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. (Would infanticide and sodomy be tolerated, let alone financed by the government, if Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments were the law of the land? Would Islam be a looming threat to our peace and security if the First Commandment had not been replaced with the First Amendment? Would Americans be in nearly as much debt if usury had been outlawed as a form of theft? Would crime be as rampant if “cruel and unusual punishment” had not been outlawed and criminals were instead punished with Yahweh’s righteous judgments? Would we be on the fiscal cliff if we were taxed with a flat increase tax rather than a graduated income tax?)
  4. Identifying and repenting of the Constitution, as the national idol it represents, holds part of the answer for restoring America to her 17th-century Christian roots.
  5. Any hope of a future generation establishing a government of, by, and for Yahweh depends upon our exposing the Constitution’s heresy and instilling Yahweh’s law in the hearts and minds of our children and grandchildren.

On February 27, 2009, James Dobson conceded that we have lost the culture wars. This is the consequence of Christians having spent the last two centuries lopping at the rotten branches of our culture’s corrupt tree while watering and fertilizing its roots.

We should lop away at the tree’s corrupt branches (infanticide, sodomy, the economy, etc.). However, until the root of these problems is Biblically addressed, we will never shut down the infanticide mills, we will never defeat the sodomites, and we will never fix the economy. In short, we will never win the culture wars. This issue is more than important for anyone concerned about God, our nation, and the future of our posterity, it’s the cutting- edge issue of our day.1

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

For more on this issue, go to Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution.

Related Posts:

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

Today’s Mount Carmel Christians

Time For Pronomians to Come Out of the Closet

1. The issue of the Constitution pales in comparison with the importance of the remnant’s individual salvation in Christ (although the two are ultimately intertwined), which is the foundation upon which a Christian society is erected (1 Corinthians 3:11).

  1. C. Steward says:

    In nearly 30 years of examining the U.S. Constitution, I’ve only found two things in the entire document that could be stretched into saying they were based on the Bible. And one of those was in an Amendment.

    ( In the Year of our Lord ) was not one of them. “Many call Him lord…..”

    1) …that nothing other than gold or silver is supposed to be used to pay debts.(paraphrased)
    2) …that an accused individual is guaranteed to meet face to face with their accuser.(paraphrased)

    And in both cases, those “laws” have been easily eliminated from society. In my opinion, extinguishing any and all remote references to the Scriptures in regards to the “laws of the United States” has occurred by the adoption and continued acceptance of the U.S. Constitution.

    As an 18 year old child, I knew that myself and the document ( Con ) were not going to be able to exist together in harmony. When I read the next to the last paragraph, “this Constitution, and the laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land” ( paraphrased ), that screamed to me, “We will not have this man ( Jesus ) to reign over us.”

    “A good tree cannot bring forth corrupt fruit.” What we are seeing around us today is the result of the fruit of the Constitution. The Constitution is the “golden calf” of this people and those who fashioned it. Until we realize this and turn back to the God of the Bible and His Laws, we will see nothing but evil continually grow in our faces. Worse, is the heritage we are leaving for our children and for our grandchildren.

    • psychicbloodbrother says:

      Useful idiot. The Constitution Protects your religious liberty. If you had an honest appraisal of the founding principles you would see that we have the greatest gift to religious liberty in the constitution and that the founders clearly took the position that we could not keep individual rights and a republic without a virtuous people. Conversely you seem to be arguing against the constitution on the principle that we should have a theocracy. Sounds like Islam to me….this is the same position the muslim brotherhood holds as they work to impose sharia on the world. The people are the constitution and when you argue against the people you expose yourself as a charlatan. Nice Try.

      • Pbb, if you intend to post here, you must refrain from personal attacks, such as “Useful idiot.” Please note #4 in our Comment Policy, which reads: “Discourteous behavior (name calling or rude or insulting remarks directed at another user).” Any more such unnecessary remarks will ban you from this site.

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but your handle “psychicbloodbrother” would seem to indicate that you are not a Christian. If this is true, then your worldview paradigm is not the same as those of us who are and therefore I wouldn’t, expect you to agree with where those of us who have a Biblical and Christian worldview are coming from. This said, I will, nonetheless, continue–if not for your sake, then for the sake of other readers.

        Whereas everyone has the right to individually pursue or not pursue a relationship with Yahweh via Christ’s blood atoning sacrifice and resurrection from the grave, the “religious liberty,” as provided for by Amendment 1, by which polytheism was enabled and is protected here in America, is nothing more than a blatant violation of the First Commandment. Consequently, those of us who believe the First Commandment is still in force under the New Covenant want anything to do with the First Amendment’s “religious liberty,” whether we’re protected or not thereby.

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

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

        Excerpted from “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.php.

        • psychicbloodbrother says:

          Its only perceived as a personal attack if it is true. Useful idiot is a simple term to describe someone arguing for their own slavery. I completely disagree with your premise that we have never truly been free except in the years before the Constitution. This premise is bogus and wreaks of George Orwell. You live in a free society because of the constitution and you remain free because of it. You are using your freedom to argue against the thing that makes you free. That my friend is a useful idiot. You are arguing for some sort of utopian freedom or LSD trip IDK which? We all have free will and this perfectionist gibberish you are peddling neglects the fact that you are free to worship in this country as you please. Because the constitution is not perfect in its design to separate powers it must be thrown out is perfectionist nonsense. We can never be as free as your theoretical definition of freedom, which is highly subjective by the way. The fact that you argue against the very instrument that enables you, and your free will, to pursue happiness and worship whatever, is fascinating to me. The American constitutions very existence is to protect us from each other by protecting Judeo-Christian principles where rights of individuals do not come from man and therefore cannot be taken away by man. BTW Ted how in the world do you conflate the American constitution with a theocracy? Only a virtuous people can live in a free society like America and the current state of our society can be correlated to our virtue. This can’t be forced on people, people have to choose to be good. Without the constitution where would we really be? We have certainly been captured by the unconstitutional laws that have given rise to bureaucratic despotism but this is of our own making and must be undone. You don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

          • Pbb, no matter how you attempt to frame it, “useful idiot” is a personal attack that adds nothing to a debate of facts. It certainly added nothing substantive to what you said. The following is how this term is, in part, defined on Wikipedia: “In political jargon, useful idiot is a PEJORATIVE term for people perceived as propagandists….” (emphasis added.) Consequently, I’m requesting that you refrain from such personal attacks. Your facts–if that’s what they are–should stand on their own without resorting to unnecessary derogatory statements aimed at others.

            As for some of your points: First, being you did not overrule my assumption that you are not a Christian, I must continue to assume you are not and answer your points accordingly. For example, because most of us here are working from the paradigm that “The law of Yahweh is perfect….” (Psalm 19:7) and that, therefore, everything must be assessed via His perfection, that it is THIS that you have labeled as “perfectionist gibberish.” As such, our paradigms can never be compatible. In fact, your paradigm is ultimately as religiously exclusive as is those whose paradigm is Biblical Christianity.

            Allow me to explain: Hopefully, you’ll agree that the term “religious liberty” is meant to be all-inclusive. Any degree of intolerance eliminates any claim of “religious liberty.” With this in mind, yours and the framers’ “religious liberty” is in fact religious intolerance.

            Your alleged “religious liberty” demands that you exclude those of us who believe in what you call “perfectionist gibberish” from yours and the framers’ idea of “religious liberty.” Ultimately the two are incompatible. Religious liberty only tolerates unconditional religious liberty. It’s for the same reason that the framers’ proviso for inclusive polytheism has led to America’s persecution of exclusive monotheistic Christianity. Although monotheistic Christianity allows for individual choice, polytheism cannot tolerate the Bible’s otherwise exclusivity, such as found in John 14:6, Acts 4:12, and 2 John 1:7-11. Consequently, yours and framers “religious liberty” is really religious intolerance and is the very reason you are here debating what you perceive as Christianity’s intolerance and “perfectionist gibberish” as you labeled it.

            Furthermore, you claimed that “[I am] using [my] freedom to argue against the thing that makes [me] free.” This is blatantly untrue. Christian freedom does NOT come from anything found in Amendment 1. If this were true, Amendment 1 would have had to have existed from the beginning of time. Our individual freedom or liberty comes via Christ’s atoning blood sacrifice and resurrection from the grave and we are pursuing liberty for society by way of Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty.

            Others and I are arguing for Christian monotheism as a result of our love for and devotion to Yahweh and, would be doing so, regardless the First Amendment or what persecution might come without it.

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            I completely disagree with your premise. To say that you are a “True” Christian but don’t believe in biblical Christianity is breathtaking. The term religious liberty means religious liberty. Words are words. I can’t for the life of me understand why a Christian would pursue perfection to the point where others points of view are dismissed Or the very foundations of our republic are dismissed. The very idea that the founders were not perfect so the most free nation in the history of the world, based on the most enlightened set of principles in the history of the world, must not be good fundamentally dismisses those enlightened principles. Jesus Hated the nicolaitans for the same reason. Don’t be so open minded your brain falls out. The constitution protects religious liberty and all of your other freedoms in this country. It may not be perfect, but it is the best man has ever put in place to protect man from his own imperfection. To argue against the the very thing that protects you is insane. I would however argue with you for a roll back of the bureaucratic despotism that we have allowed to creep into our free republic that has made us less free over time through progressvism. I will always put God first which I hear you saying, but we must live here in the reality of an imperfect world. The reality is that in our world our individual freedoms are protected by our constitution. We need to restore those founding principles and get back to limited government but we don’t need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. All other arguments are academic.

          • Pbb, I think you’ve misunderstood me. To be a true Christian IS to believe in Biblical Christianity. I’m not even sure what statement of mine (or perhaps Mr. Steward’s) that you’re referring to.

            Yes, words are words, but that doesn’t mean that they mean what people think they do. Religious liberty is religious liberty and I stand by my explanation that what most people mean by religious liberty has limits and is, therefore, not religious liberty at all, but religious intolerance. For example, in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the United States Government ruled that polygamy was forbidden, which was religious intolerance toward the Mormons. Other cases of religious intolerance under the guise of Amendment 1’s freedom of religion could be cited, but hopefully you can see the point.

            Therefore, what the framers and most people mean by religious liberty is, at best, only constitutionally compatible religious liberty, making the Constitution superior to whatever it nixes, including Biblical Christianity. It was no different in ancient Rome, one of the most religiously tolerant nations to exist–that is, except as it concerned Christianity.The fact is, NO ONE really believes in 100 % religious liberty.

            I dismiss the founders/framers, the Constitution, and any and everything else that is antithetical to Yahweh’s morality as codified in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9). And everyone else who claims to be a Biblical Christian will do the same.

            I do not believe the framers’ ideas were enlightened but heretical to my God, His righteous, His kingdom, and His law and will do everything in my power to expose it for the national idol it is.

            I’m not interested in man’s best (IF that’s even what the Constitution is)–in fact, why would anyone want man’s best when they can instead of have their Creators’ perfection.

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            While i understand your arguments i also find them to be academic. We could chat about philosophy all day long but to say that your philosophy is anti-constitution is probably a good starting point. The better question might be why you think the constitution is the problem. Let me say a few words here where we might , if we are truly honest with each other, find some common ground.

            So far I have not really seen any evidence of your having studied the constitution and the federalist papers, and if you have it may be a place where we need to go back and re-read some of those original writings. I would also posit that if you have been solely indoctrinated by the most purely socialist educational system in the world we need to talk about how the 20th century American educational system, a system as closely aligned with the definition of socialism that i have ever come across, is the largest reason for our problems. This godless socialism is what Americans think passes for higher education. If we can agree that this is true, and by definition is has become so, lets start there. If we are to have a discussion on why our system is so screwed up these days and why an election will not change it in and of itself i would agree. “The Latent causes of faction are sown in the nature of man” Federalist 10 (Madison).

            I will argue these points with you as a reason we are where we are and that without massive change like that of Calvin Coolidge where the government was cut in half we will inevitably have another huge conflict the likes of the civil war. Once Wilson, OUR first actively openly progressive president, which 2012 marked 100 years of progressivism, changed the way law school was taught from constitutional law to case law, and the supreme court precedent was set we accelerated the journey away from the founding principles of this nation. Futhermore the Progressive presidents, both republican and democrat of the progressive era, established the federal reserve, income tax, and social programs that are now threatening the future of our great nation. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition” Federalist 51 (Madison). The progressives openly advocated for a second bill of rights, also against the constitution. Ambitious?

            Just as the supreme court case of dredd scott led to the civil war the supreme court case in the FDR presidency that set precedent that you could not fire bureaucrats. Ironically it was a check and balance to stop FDR’s progressive agenda, actually is what the progressives have used to continue to grow the government bureaucracy ever since. There is another supreme court case in the 1960’s where the supreme court rules that elected officials could delegate legislative authority to committee’s. These cases are great discussion points as to how we got here. The 1960’s case is why you can have a 2000+ page health care law that legislators don’t read or debate foisted on the people. There is a layer that has developed in the government that has legislative authority (can you say lobbyist), that can’t be fired, and is unaccountable to the people. Elections matter less and less now. This layer needs to be purged since it is no longer accountable to the people which is a check that is no longer working.

            An additional and consequential argument is you can’t pass most any legislation unless you have influence in all three branches of the government. Stated another way …we must have tyranny to pass legislation, that’s how screwed up it has become. Behold the rise of bureaucratic despotism. If you combine the secularization of our culture and the un-education of American’s we may not be able to roll it back without much conflict. This is an argument that says progressivism and un-constituional laws have brought us to where we are. Imperfect men brought us where we are in their attempt to perfect man. This is AKA the Fatal Conciet aptly described and written about by Hayek as he watched the Nazis try to take over the world.

            Progressives blame shift all that its screwed up on the the constitution when in fact we have not been following the constitution as founded for a long long time. This is the same argument that the blame shifters use to say capitalism is flawed after they have destroyed the economy with crony anti-capitalist laws and behaviors. The best most recent exemple is the Community re-investment act that led to the financial crisis we face today. Never let a crisis go to waste….The entire progressive argument has devoured our culture through
            education and the media and continues its indoctrination nightly. While the bureaucracy loots the treasury and blame everyone else for our problems. NO ACCOUNTABILITY, checks and balances no longer working. “One Hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one” Federalist 48 (Madison) This can be restored but only a virtuous people can expect to restore it and rule themselves. The framers were nothing like the romans Or the french but they new that without virtue they all fall. This is why our faith is so very important.

            This is a starting point if you all are serious about the constitution. To say the constitution is flawed is to say that man is flawed and you would be correct. What the founders knew was this very thing and that is why it was designed to separate powers. To think that we could perfect man negates the enlightenment and the knowledge that man is imperfect. Man has taken us away from the principles of the constitution and if we recognize that and not succumb to the perfectionist premise which argues against its own imperfection, we may have an uplifting conversation.

            I will fight for Liberty over Equality every time.

            Lets do some Myth Busting.

            Have a Blessed New Year.

          • PBB: “The better question might be why you think the constitution is the problem.”

            TRW: I would think by now that’s pretty clear: I believe in Psalm 19:7–that is, that Yahweh’s law is perfect and that, therefore, anything opposed to it (such as what’s found in the Constitution) is heretical to Yahweh the God of the Bible. Furthermore, everything wrong in America today can be traced back to the fact that the framers nowhere expressly established America’s government upon Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments.

            PBB: “So far I have not really seen any evidence of your having studied the constitution and the federalist papers….”

            TRW: See “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html. All 565 pages are online, 34 Chapters in which I examine every article and amendment by Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments. And, yes, you will find the Federalist Papers quoted therein, along with many other primary source documents.

            PBB: ” I would also posit that if you have been solely indoctrinated by the
            most purely socialist educational system in the world we need to talk
            about how the 20th century American educational system, a system as
            closely aligned with the definition of socialism that i have ever come
            across, is the largest reason for our problems”

            TRW: I agree completely with this statement, except for the last part. America’s socialistic education system (and everything you elaborate on in the remainder of your response) is one of but numerous consequences of the framers failing to expressly establish government upon Yahweh’s morality.

            PBB: “Man has taken us away from the principles of the constitution….”

            TRW: The framers took us away from the immutable morality and perfect laws of Yahweh and thus it was inevitable that man would follow and take us away from the heretical principles of the Constitution.

            PBb: “I will fight for Liberty over Equality every time.”

            TRW: I will fight for Yahweh’s morality over man’s immorality (including what’s found in the Constitution) every time!

            May both our New Years be blessed, provided Yahweh discerns we should be blessed!

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            So your position on these issues is really one of religion primarily. Are you arguing for a theocracy to replace our constitution? Is this an argument for a system like Sharia Law? I don’t understand where you are going with this. I was under the impression that we were going to talk about the constitution but we are not really talking about the constitution you are talking about religion. It follows then that your premise might be theocracy and against all constitutions. In that case my work is done here. I am not in any way shape or form in favor of a theocracy AS you seem not to be in any way shape or form in favor of a constitution.

            No Myths to be Busted here if the sites premise is theocracy . Sorry to have wasted your time.

            Have a great day!!!

          • We’re both arguing theocracy:

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

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

            Excerpted from “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.php.

          • The constitution is a religion – faith in men departed from God outside ie without GODS standard of measure. It’s become our national idol and god. Many countries besides US or united States’ has this issue, it’s a void MAN fills when there is no Supremacy of Master Yah/christ in his life to rule his thoughts. We have to serve some one… I personally feel it’s encoded in our DNA if you will. Like a GUN – it’s up to the hearts of men to use it rightly or wrongly – and we chose to deflect our Godward tract with an ungodly direction.

          • David Hodges says:

            “So far I have not really seen …” Let’s let John 9: 25 be our testimony: “…whereas I was blind, now I see.” I applaud Ted for exposing to the most politically correct, and Biblically incorrect, document of our nation’s history.

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            So What? Back up your position to support his conclusion.

          • Charlie Steward says:

            PBB – Really? Look around you, please. Tell us just what “liberty” your CONstitution has provided you with.

            As a U.S. “citizen” you must get permission ( license ) from your “government” to do every single thing needed for living. There is absolutely NOTHING you can do today – without first getting a “permit” from your “government.”

            And, another head-scratcher from you is your consistent description of the people and their elected “leaders” as being “virtuous.” Are you serious? Please tell us where you obtain the definition of “virtuous.”

            In one of your posts, you demeaned Orwell, yet your usage of the word “virtuous” screams “new-speak” to me. Does “virtuous” now mean pro-sodomy, pro-abortion, pro-gambling, pro-theft, pro-pornography, pro-Isalm, etc., all of which is pro-moted and pro-tected by your CONstitution? Anything the U.S. CON protects is “virtuous,” is this what you are saying?

            Further, what “protections and safeguards” has your CONstitution afforded you today? You keep saying how laws, policies, etc., have strayed from their “founding principles.”

            Well, you know what, the “founding principles” for God’s people, have never changed? Those Laws are still wholly perfect, unchanging, and work today, just the same as they did the day they were instituted.

            The same cannot be said about your CONstiution. It’s been officially amended 27 times – ( with one of those being bounced around like a ping-pong ball twice. ) It’s been altered an innumerable number of times by treaties and court decisions. It’s proven over and over and over to be no more constant or reliable than the parchment it was written on.

            The “nays” in the document have been easily turned to “yeas.” The “yeas” have been easily turned to “nays.” The “blacks and whites” have all turned to gray. It has afforded you nothing but a pipe-dream of so-called “freedom” that you constantly are being charged for by way of taxation, oppression and the blood of your fathers and sons ( and now your mothers and daughters ).

            Someone much like yourself said to me one day, “Well, the CONstitution is based on the Bible……” I said, “Well fine, then, let me still just stick with the Bible.” Problem is, the reality is that the CONstitution outlawed the Bible and made outlaws and criminals out of anyone who wants to follow it ( the Bible ).

            It is total folly to say the CONstitution, the “founders,” etc., were men who believed and followed the Bible. Nearly every point of the CONstitution is at the least – not in agreement with the Bible – and worst – totally in opposition to it.

            Compare your CONstitutionally “protected liberty” with the freedom that is offered by the perfect Laws of God. For instance:

            Work ( U.S. ) = apply for and pay for work permit ( license ) or face fines and / or jail. Work is a “privilege” granted by “government.”
            ( God’s Law ) = It is a man’s responsibility to work to provide for his family. No need to ask anyone for permission to do what God has already authorized. Set up “shop” and perform any work your heart desires, so long as your work is “virtuous” ( God’s definition, if that’s okay ) without any restraints, regulations, burdens, taxation, etc.

            Travel ( U.S. ) = apply for and pay for licenses, permits, taxes, etc., then a “privilege” is granted to move yourself from one place to another as long as all your “papers” are in order and you move yourself in an approved manner from your masters.
            ( God’s Law ) = He owns all roads, highways and biways and has granted His people all authority to move themselves around on His creation in whatever manner they choose, provided they do not damage another’s body or property. Pretty simple, basic, principle of what it really means to be free.

            Marriage ( U.S. ) = apply for and pay for permission to marry or face civil penalties, ie., tax status, etc. “Legal partnership” created whereby the state becomes the main arbitor in how the marriage “contract” is carried out. Total jurisdiction of the state covers the “contract.” Homosexuals now welcome and “protected.” Divorce rate has sky-rocketed under this system.
            ( God’s Law ) = No permits, no fees, not even a ceremony if they choose not to. Simply an agreement to become one in the sight of God and man. The husband is now the provider, protector and head of the household even as Christ is the head of His body. The bedrock of any civilization is a solid family condition. Under this system, families flourish.

            Money ( U.S. ) = Worthless pieces of paper that can be inflated or deflated at just about the whim of anyone controlling it. Wait a minute…..Your CONstitution says as clear as the nose on anyone’s face that NOTHING BUT GOLD AND SILVER COIN can be used to pay debts. Woops, that one only took about 25 years to be done away with under the CON. Last I checked, it was still in there, but somehow it gets overlooked. One of the only things in the CONsitution that can be remotely connected with Scripture, and they managed to take that away in a very short time. As if inflation isn’t bad enough, now, just wait until the “cash” is gone and all they have left is computer keystrokes. Can’t hardly wait for that transition.
            ( God’s Law ) – Honest weights and measures. Trade is based solely on value for value. Each part of a transaction must have intrinsic value. This promotes honesty and integrity among the people of a civilization. It provides wealth and secures a heritage for posterity. It also provides against corruption and the ability to devalue currency, which steals the wealth of the people. Please see II Kings 23 to see how evil God says it is to take the silver and gold away from the people.

            Labor taxes ( U.S. ) = Your CONstitution: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” I would expect you to tell us this is “unCONstitutional.” Well, your system of checks and balances with your judges, have ruled time and time again that it IS CONstitutional. Hence, it’s still here, and getting stronger everyday.
            ( God’s Law ) – Isaiah 58 is one of the clearest passages of Scripture that help us understand the mind and will of God and how it relates to His Law for people. This passage shows how vehemently God despises taxing labor. He says, “If you tax labor, I will not even hear your prayers.” He turns His back on people who tax labor. In James 5, it is further made clear that “witholding taxes” makes Him so angry He wants to declare war on those involved.

            I could go on and on with these comparisons. I am not supposing to speak for any of these men that have been responding to you. But when you understand the mind and will of God because you have love for His Law – and He fulfills His promise to reveal Himself to those who love His Law – I feel compelled to speak when I see someone, such as yourself, claim some Biblical support for the CON – when it is clear – you know absolutely nothing about the mind and will of God for His creation.

            In each instance shown above, the clear choice for anyone who can think reasonably, is God’s Law is superior. As I said above, I could go on and on giving examples of man’s law vs. God’s Law and show the superiority of God’s Law in every instance.

          • David Hodges says:

            I’d just as soon use the word “PROstitution” as the word “CONstitution.” Whoring after other gods is whoring after other gods, regardless of what you call it.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Go with your instinct pbb. I for one appreciate some of the facts and opinions you brought to this conversation. Debating never changes the view points of those we debate with. Never. Debating is verbal sport and debators want only to ‘win’.

          • Go with your instinct!?! Perhaps you mean something else, but that sounds like what we’re warned against in Proverbs 14:12 “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”

            And, was it wrong for me to bring this to your attention (debate it) with you? (A case could be made that you’re here debating with those of who your putting down for debating.) Was it wrong for the prophets to debate with leaders and the people of Israel regarding their individual and collective sins? Was it wrong for Christ to debate with the Pharisees? What are you going to do with instructions such as Jude 1:3?

            Your statement that “debating never changes the view points of those we debate with” is simply not true. Perhaps seldom but never is overstated. However, even if it were never it doesn’t change the fact that Christians have been charged to “earnestly contend for the faith.”

          • Disappointed... says:

            By instinct, I meant gut feeling. Jude 1:3? Thank you for bringing it up. I intend to follow it and it is one of a few reasons I joined this conversation.

            No, it is not wrong for you to bring anything to my attention.

          • Please don’t take this wrong but I think whether we call it “instinct” or “gut feeling,” we’re still on shaking ground in light of Proverbs 14:12.

            You’re welcome concerning Jude 1:3 and I’m pleased with your last statement. Perhaps we’re just viewing the word “debate” differently.

          • Disappointed... says:

            I’m not aware that Christ debated the Pharisees. I read where He reproved and exposed them, but He was God in the flesh. He didn’t need to debate His own truth.

          • You’re correct. Bad example on my part.

          • Clint Ufford says:

            Good point here. This subject can be overlooked easily. Christ did, for lack of better words, put them in there place and exposed them. Boy I wish it could and would happen on a national scale this day and age.

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            Blindness is incurable, even willful blindness. I appreciate your post Disappointed. Conflating the constitution to a theocracy is dishonest and misrepresents the facts. Expecting perfection from anything man made is also dishonest. If people of faith stand up and get engaged we can restore the principles that made this country great, as it is man himself who has moved us from those principles. This entire site is devoted to diminishing the constitution nothing else. This is the dialectic argument as you stated and to debate something from the premise that it is must be perfect only serves to diminish, distract, deceive, delude, degrade, devolve, destruct, deconstruct and demagogue issues until the subject is discarded. The true meaning of the constitution was to understand that man is imperfect and keep power spread out and prevent tyranny. If people are thoughtful and morale we don’t need much government but we do need limited government and that is what our constitution is supposed be be. Of course it is not like that now but that is because man has worked against its protections for so long. Secular progressivism has been at work here for over a 100 years. If people are really faithful and virtuous they control themselves internally and do not argue for external control. Our constitution depends on a faithful virtuous people to operate it and to protect it, and in turn we are all free to practice our faith unmolested. I haven’t found any honest discussions here that would indicate a faithful virtuous discussion, I was not surprised to see the claim to be “True” Christains that diminish other Christians with a disdainful morale superiority which wreaks of nicolaity. The honest debate is one that informs and builds up and is on the side of creation. A dishonest debate is one that deceives and tears down which is on the side of destruction. I for one an a Proud American and I still believe in the founding principles of this nation, furthermore i will fight to restore the founding principles. Clearly we are at a moment in our history where we are going to have to make a choice. I hope we make the right choice and stand up for the most successful, prosperous, generous, productive, benevolent, christian nation, even with all of its faults, the world has ever known.

          • Charlie Steward says:

            PBB – Blindness, of any kind, is certainly not incurable. Jesus clearly showed this to be true as He caused the blind to see, the lame to walk and the dead to live again.

            I’m sorry to read these, your latest comments as it demonstrates that you are completely missing the point of what this website is all about. I don’t believe you are honestly evaluating the responses that are coming your way. You can’t be, because you keep saying the same things without responding to questions that have been asked of you.

            Example: Ted’s answer to you was quite clear as to why anyone or anything who makes “laws” is called a theocracy. The Scriptures are quite clear that only “gods” are capable of making “law.”

            First Commandment – Thou shalt have no other “gods” before me. The word “gods” as found in this commandment is from the Hebrew elohiym, which means magistrates and judges. Magistrates and judges are certainly allowed for the people of God, but the Scriptures lay out what the qualifications are for those offices.

            Romans 12 & 13 ( among numerous other passages ) explains this explicitly. A ruler for the people of God CAN ONLY be a follower of Christ, a minister of the gospel of the Kingdom. “He is the minister of God, to thee for good.” Minister is from the Greek diakonos, which means Christian teacher or pastor.

            The U.S. Constitution forbids any religious qualifications for holding position in any capacity of the “government” it created, or for the “states” under its authority.

            This is one example of not how the Con and the Scriptures are not in agreement, but how the Con is defiantly opposed to the will of God for His people.

            Further, in John 10, the Pharisees were ready to kill Christ ( again ) for supposedly breaking “their laws.” Christ response was one that many people completely skip over, but its relevance for today is staggering. When they said He had violated “their laws”, His response was, “Ye are gods?”

            Ordained Lawmaking is reserved to God Himself and to His Son. Men are not allowed to make law. There is no need for it. He has covered it all and we are not to add to it. The Con does not ADD – it replaces.

            I asked you to read Patrick Henry’s speech of 1788 where he begged the people of Virginia NOT to accept the Con. Did you do so? He addressed every single point you made in your last post and explained better than I ever could why your arguments for the Con would not – AND HAVE NOT – worked.

            You say men have failed in upholding the original principles. Henry said the ONLY hope for the Con would be that men would be virtuous and honest. He said there are NO checks and balances to provide against the fact that men ARE NOT virtuous and honest. He even said, “If by chance…” an elected official were virtuous, it wouldn’t take long to corrupt him.

            You said the whole meaning of the Con was to understand that men are “imperfect” – yet the opening paragraph of the Con says its purpose was to establish a MORE PERFECT union. So what is it? See, YOU have even left the “founding principles” of your document.

            Lastly, I for one, can tell you that the Con does nothing to protect my “religious freedom.” Trying to live according to the teachings of the Scripture keeps one in constant peril of jail, torture, or death.

            Your references to Christianity, virtue and benevolence, etc., bring me pause. I simply do not understand where you are coming from. Where is the virtue? Where is the virtue of the people and especially of their “elected officials?”

            You are asking the “faithful” to stand up today. Great. But stand for what? A document that asks us to deny our faith? A document that asks us to agree that man’s “laws” supercede and replace the Bible? A document that commands us to make treaties with other “nations?” We can’t do it.

            How can you claim any type of Christianity or Biblical understanding and make these claims?

            Lastly, your statement above:

            The true meaning of the constitution was to understand that man is
            imperfect and keep power spread out and prevent tyranny. If people are
            thoughtful and morale we don’t need much government but we do need
            limited government and that is what our constitution is supposed be be.

            Then why are we faced with what we are faced with today? We are here because the document was flawed from the beginning. There ARE NO checks and balances. There is nothing to prevent tyranny and the document itself WILL AND HAS PRODUCED TYRANNY. “Limited government?” Are you serious?

            As Patrick Henry said in his speech of 1788:

            “I am answered by gentlemen, that, though I might speak of terrors, yet the fact was, that we were surrounded by none of the dangers I apprehended. I conceive this new government to be one of those dangers: it has produced those horrors which distress many of our best citizens. We are come hither to preserve the poor commonwealth of Virginia, if it can be possibly done: something must be done to preserve your liberty and mine.”

            Yes, today, something must be done to preserve your liberty and mine. And that is for the “faithful” to fall down in repentance and plead for mercy from our Heavenly Father and ask forgiveness for following after other “gods” and turn from the wickedness to once again serve the Living God.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Steward,

            The point of the website? What is it? I thought it was to encourage conversation and sharing viewpoints. If everyone in this conversation goes into it with complete agreement, then it would be a very short conversation wouldn’t it ?

            The constitution is not perfect. It is not even great. It is an experiment based on experience. I think a lot of the constitution was written to protect Christians from other Christians! Historically, Christians eventually kill each other and isn’t it interesting that left unchecked, Christians will eventually execute people for what they think! How did the ‘dark ages’ get their name?

            The constitution was written by men. Man is not perfect and Man is not capable of instituting a perfect government, even when they attempt to adapt it word- word from the Mosaic government. Remember, that the only reason the Mosaic government of judges was perfect is because it was dictated by God Himself. He even penned the Ten Commandments with His own finger. That was perfection. We were what didn’t work.

          • Charlie Steward says:

            Dis – Though not normally easily offended, I do take great exception to your comment that “historically Christians will eventually kill each other…..” I greatly beg to differ with your assessment of history.

            I will make the following statement and will stand by it even though it might be unpopular even with others that have found themselves in agreement with me on other posts on this site.

            “Since the inception of Biblical Christianity, there HAS NEVER BEEN A FOLLOWER OF CHRIST that has EVER KILLED another follower of Christ – EVER.”

            There have been thousands and thousands of people who have masqueraded themselves as Christians who have killed countless numbers, but real Christians do not commit murder – and even more so – would not murder their own brothers.

            Now examine another one of your statements.

            [Remember, that the only reason the Mosaic government of judges was
            perfect is because it was dictated by God Himself. He even penned the
            Ten Commandments with His own finger. That was perfection. We were what didn’t work.]

            You just said the Mosaic government of judges was perfect.

            So what’s the difference? Why was it perfect then, and cannot be perfect today?

            The fact is, under the New Covenant Kingdom Age of Christ, it should be even easier to have that type of perfect system of Government.

            Let me lay another one out there for you. The “dark ages?” Says who? Is it possible that men named that period of time the “dark ages” because it could have been one of the greatest times to be alive? Is it possible that there was the least amount of “man’s organized government” than at any other time on earth – and civilization still managed to go on?

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            This is the type of non-thinking response i have seen throughout these discussion threads. You are exhibiting & promoting the nicolaity of revelations. You make claims you can’t back up and you assume superiority which turns the debate against itself on its own. Thank you. Good Day Sir.

          • Charlie Steward says:

            Someone makes a statement that “all through history Christians have killed Christians,” without providing one shred of evidence, and you call my response to that “non-thinking.”

            We’ve been called liars on this site, without one shred of evidence. Now we are aligned with murderers, without one shred of evidence, and you call our responses “non-thinking.”

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Steward,

            Who has called who a lier? I’m getting confused? Was it me? I’m not being sarcastic?

            If every statement every person makes on this thread has to qualified, backed up with proof, hard evidence than

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            I will not waste any more of my time engaging in a debate designed to trash the U.S. Constitution. Nobody is arguing against the fact that Gods laws are in the highest priority for all of us. Arguing for this while against the constitution is blatant sophistry. This premise of this site, and the tact of its members is to diminish the constitution and that is clear to me now. Constitutional myth busters is a deceptive way to draw people in to a false premise. No thanks. Good Day Sir.

          • PPB, if God’s laws are the highest priority for you then, please, why do you support and promote a document whose nearly every article and amendment is antithetical, if not hostile, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality? Is this not essentially the same issue Elijah was addressing on Mt. Carmel when, in 1 Kings 18:21, he declared “How long halt ye between two opinions? If Yahweh be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.” Baal was not real god but simply a representation of people in rebellion to the real God. WE THE PEOPLE is just a modern form of Baalism.

          • Charlie Steward says:

            You have not engaged in debate. You have not answered one of my questions to you since this began. Your responses have been:

            “Useful idiot”
            “Dishonest”
            “nicolaitans”
            “Non-thinkers”

            I asked for your comments on Patrick Henry’s speech. No response.
            I asked for your comments on the New Haven Covenant. No response.
            I asked for your comments on the comparisons between God’s Law and the CON which I provided you. No response.
            I asked for your comments regarding the gold and silver clause in the CON. No response.
            Ted showed you exactly how any “government” is a theocracy. And you responded by calling him dishonest.
            Ted has asked you to review his newest book where he goes article by article and shows you how the CON opposes the Bible. No response.

            The premise of this site is EXACTLY the same that Jesus and His disciples faced. The people of their day were not living according to the teachings of the Scripture, but by their own traditions, which had “made the Word of God of no effect.”

            This is why this land is in the condition it is in. Their traditions have made the Word of God of no effect. (Mark 7)

            The Constitution states as that IT, AND IT’S TREATIES AND LAWS, ARE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

            You can’t have both, PBB. It is a lie and one of the greatest deceptions ever to say, as you do, that “God’s laws are the highest priority for all of us” when YOUR LAW says that IT is the supreme law of the land.

            The Con outlawed the Bible. Nothing can be any clearer than this.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Very well stated Pbb. If you have the time and patience, hang in there, and you’ll start to see some honest discussion on this thread.

          • Charlie Steward says:

            Dis – This comment is really strange. What has been dishonest about the discussion? To call people liars without any evidence calls into question your own heart.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Steward,
            I apologize for implying that previous comments in this discussion were not the honest thoughts of you and the others or that their comments were not honest. Everyone is speaking from conviction. What I meant to say to pbb is that if he continues in this discussion, he will see honest discussion from me. Not as opposed to others.

          • So, it would seem what you’re really saying is that you do not believe Psalm 19:7 that Yahweh’s law is perfect and, therefore, should be the ethical standard and objective for everything we do.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Psychic-Thank you for identifying the heart of the matter for the whole world to see: “I for one an a Proud American…”. What more needs to be said. You imply that you want a virtuous nation, built upon Christian ideals, but as your prooftexts, you quote Madison, not Christ. Let’s see what Scripture says about one who defiantly proclaims to the world that he is a “Proud American”.

            Psalms 131:1– O Lord, my heart is not proud, nor my eyes haughty;
            Nor do I involve myself in great matters,
            Or in things too difficult for me.

            Psalms 138:6–For though the Lord is exalted,Yet He regards the lowly,
            But the haughty [proud] He knows from afar.

            Proverbs 8:13–“The fear of the Lord is to hate evil;Pride and arrogance and the evil way
            And the perverted mouth, I hate.

            Proverbs 16:18-19–Pride goes before destruction,And a haughty spirit before stumbling.
            19 It is better to be humble in spirit with the lowly
            Than to divide the spoil with the proud.

            Proverbs 18:12–Before destruction the heart of man is haughty [proud], But humility goes before honor.

            You claim that all on this forum who disagree with you lack understanding. Since it is obvious you are unaware of the collective wisdom to be found here, it would seem that the most basic of concepts to be found herein, are beyond the comprehension of a prideful heart.
            Ultimately, ALL of our problems can be traced to a hardened heart, foolishly believing that, as “gods”, we have within us, the power to establish a MORE PERFECT union. You can continue to wave the banner of
            “Proud American” all you want. As for me, I am just a humble Christian, American by the grace and mercy of Yahweh.

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            It does not take long for anti-capitalist, anti-American and I would argue anti-christian responses to emerge in these conversations. Thanks for exposing yourself. The real myths about the constitution are not being exposed here they are being created. Good Day Sir.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            ” The constitution protects religious liberty and all of your other freedoms in this country.” Not even close!! The very thought that man’s law can “protect” my freedom to worship Yahweh, is completely devoid of rational thought. I’m not sure how careful you were in you

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            I remain unmoved and steadfast in the fact that we can have this discussion in a state of freedom, that relies on the constitution of the people for the people and by the people. You and I ARE the constitution and a constitutional principal that prevails is consent of the governed in a free nation. This is enough for me to take my citizenship seriously and work to protect the constitution. To Amend the constitution is very difficult and it was designed that way. There is no easy way to do this for the reasons you state. If we take free will seriously and we are a virtuous people we would never change the constitution and its biblical principle and the right to protect oneself codified in the 2nd amendment. Furthermore the constitution is very clear that in times where the government over steps these principles we not only have the right to overthrow the government but the obligation to restore the the constitution to these principles. The principles in the constitution are based on natural rights and much of this emanates from the enlightened period as you stated, we agree. We may also agree that to take either the bible or the constitution too literally is to negate the principles within. We must also agree that both Christianity and the constitution are about the individual. The parallels are very important as are the parallels of the trinity and the separation of powers. However we will completely disagree with any comparisons to the french revolution and the American revolution. There is no comparison between the declaration of independence which references god 4X as the foundational principle of where your rights come from and what our constitution is based on. The founders were shrewd in their codification of those principles in the American founding. There is no comparison to the french philosophy of man that robespierre & rousseau stood for, in their very shallow general will principles. The french revolution massacred its own people based on principles that were based in MAN not GOD. When you base your philosophy in man and the collective mind your are no longer tethered to biblical principles and the blood runs in the streets. The main difference is the individual. The french revolution was not about the individual and American Revolution was. There are no collective solutions for individual problems. On these principles I base my understanding. There is nothing antithetical to liberty in these principles and the free masons debate is nonsensical prefectionist drivel. The free masons of the time of the founding is not the same organization it became thereafter eschewing all christian principles much like the progressive agenda is doing to secularize everything in the past 100 years. Few if any of the founders were free mason to begin with and the connections were weak and tangential. Much of what is taught on free masonry to diminish and degrade the character of our founders is historicism. Furthermore that degradation is a route of a perfectionist looking for perfection where none could exist and using this doubt to diminish the character of the founders. No mans character can stand up against a perfectionist argument and these tangents become dishonest premises in an argument against the constitution.

          • Roger says:

            PBB, I’m a little confused. Perhaps you could shed some more light on your statement.
            If we (you and I) are the Constitution as you insist above, then why in the world do we need a scrap of paper which purports to tell us what we can or cannot do and/or have?
            Take it a little bit further. If we live in a society where government derives from the governed, then logically it follows that we are the government. If, in fact, we are the government, then why do we need someone else legislating in our name and supposedly for our benefit?

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            You obviously don’t understand the founding of this country, the historical context for its founding and the principles of our constitution. Better get to studying before you attempt to tear at others arguments. How bout this tell me why you think a government of, by and for the people does not empower every citizen. Help me understand why you completely dismiss the principles of the consent of the governed. The myth here is that you really understand the constitution in the first place. BUSTED.

          • PBB: “I remain unmoved and steadfast in the fact that we can have this discussion in a state of freedom, that relies on the constitution of the
            people for the people and by the people.”

            TRW: You seem to be implying that we could not be doing the same if government was based upon Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments. I beg to differ.

            PBB: “The principles in the constitution are based on natural rights and much of this emanates from the enlightened period.”

            TRW: I agree. But, you’ve only made my point: The principles of the Constitution are, therefore, NOT based upon Yahweh’s morality as codified in His moral law.

            PBB: “…the declaration of independence which references god 4X as the
            foundational principle of where your rights come from and what our
            constitution is based on”

            TRW: But what god? It cannot be overlooked that Thomas Jefferson (its author) was an antichrist and that therefore, according to 2 John 1:7-9, the god he was referring to cannot be Yahweh.

            Furthermore, the god-language is the Masonic pluralistic and polytheistic language of the day.

            PBB: “When you base your philosophy in man and the collective mind your are no longer tethered to biblical principles and the blood runs in the
            streets.”

            TRW: Blood running in the streets is not always the response to such humanism, although the day may come when it comes to this. Case in point, the Constitution which is based in the philosophy of man and the collective man. Don’t overlook the Constitution’s Preamble begins “We the People” and created a government of, by, and for the people rather than “In the beginning God” and a government of, by, and for Yahweh.

            PBB: “The free masons of the time of the founding is not the same organization it became thereafter eschewing all christian principle….”

            TRW: “David Barton minimizes the framers’ Masonic connections (as do nearly
            all Christian Constitutionalists), pointing out that there were
            differences between the Masonry of their day and our own. Masonry has
            evolved, but not enough to dismiss the framers’ Masonic connections.
            Many of Freemasonry’s most disconcerting aspects (many of which were
            borrowed from the antichristian Babylonian Talmud15)
            were in full force in the framers’ day: its self-maledictory oaths (not
            to Yahweh, His Word, or Christianity, but to the Masonic fraternity),
            its toleration of polytheism, its secular and humanist ethics, and its
            promotion of gender equality.” Excerpted from Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt5.html.

          • Roger says:

            PBB, it’s good to hear from you. I appreciate your comments.

            It almost sounds as if you are saying that the Constitution itself is perfect and cannot be improved on, except of course through the amendment process. This is patently untrue because anything man-made is flawed and can always be made better. What Ted is promoting is his version of something better. It’s perfectly OK for you to disagree with him, as I do on some points. None of us will agree on everything.

            The Constitution has been with us for well over 200 years and, no matter what kind of spin you put on it, we are now seeing the destruction of a society which worships it. We can’t revert back to the past. Putting prayer back in the schools isn’t going to make a nickel’s worth of difference. Stamping “In God We Trust” on our money doesn’t make it less worthless. Electing a “conservative” President isn’t going to help. There are countless other examples I could present, but time and space don’t allow.

            Something in the Constitution is fundamentally flawed or else we wouldn’t be in the mess we are. What is it? Where did we go wrong? Ted, at least, has an answer. Do you?

            For what it’s worth, I believe that we (America) are going to see wholesale abandonment of the Constitution as things get worse and worse. We are going to go through the wringer, but when we come out the other side, we will have something in place which is much, much better and far more protective of individual freedoms than the original Constitution framers could have envisioned. I have no idea what it might look like, but I am sure it will happen.

            Pipe dream? Utopia? I think not. Instead I have confident hope for the future because I have hope in the One Who controls that future.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Roger, you are correct that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. Its very nature of being amendable puts it in antipodal opposition to Yahweh’s perfect, immutable law. If you query the most ardent of “Constitutional Christians” about their early American heroes, Patrick Henry is almost always held in utmost regard. However, most of them are clueless of Henry’s vehement protestations AGAINST the ratification of the Constitution by Virginia’s House of Burgessess. Like Charlie Steward above, his reasons are not mine. But the fact that most, if not all, of his fears of a potential federal power grab under Constitutional authority have come to fruition, should at least give some of his admirers a pause to reflect his wisdom. But, alas, the overwhelming majority of voters (Biblically unqualified, and therefore, lacking authority) will continue to either cry for a “new law”, or demand a return to the genesis of the problem (U.S. Constitution). And, we will continue to see the ever quickening erosion of our liberty, until we set aside our idolatry, and return Yahweh, and His law, to the Throne.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Greetings,Mr. Price,
            In regards to your statement, ” And we will continue to see the ever quickening erosion of our liberty, until we set aside our idolatry, and return Yahweh, and His law, to the throne.”

            Can you provide this community with a Scripture(s) for us in either the OT or NT that indisputably show where Yahweh was ever removed from His throne or willingly left it?
            Thank you.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I apparently should have been a little more judicious in my wording. You are absolutely correct for pointing out my poor choice of wording. Yahweh has always been, is now, and always will be sitting upon His throne. Most people on here know what I meant by my statement, but what is implied by returning Yahweh to His Throne is that most people perceive Him as not ruling here on earth, as well as in Heaven.
            Matthew 6:10 “Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.”
            We have ATTEMPTED to remove Him from His throne, by replacing His perfect law with a More Perfect Union. We have set up our own thrown, with the King known as We the People, ruling supreme over us. Scripture knows only Yahweh as Supreme. So, in order to restore perfect order, we must repent of bending the knee to Baal (We the People), cast down our idol, and abolish the throne of our false deity. Then, and only then, can we “return” Yahweh, and His law, to the Throne.

          • Wonderful explanation!

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Price,
            No worries, I was just wondering if you meant that at face value. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, we as a nation have a lot of repenting to do. Can you clear something up for me that I’m trying to get a understand about this site and it’s community?

          • Clint Ufford says:

            Isn’t it a great thought to imagine a “constitution” where Gods laws were our laws? Wouldn’t the crime rate go down if a murderer was murdered for murdering? What if a thief had has hand cut off? Witchery, humanism, pagans and Satans cult were simply killed, rather than caged up where they could affect others? Imagine if every seventh year we took off and didn’t harvest, log or hunt…… imagine celebrating Yahweh our God in a celebration of millions together believing the same thing…. imagine our neighbor being there every time we’d needed him, our daughters being married and well taking care of by another God fearing young man…

            If God was in charge, if Christ was truly our King, what an awesome world we’d live in!

          • Roger says:

            Clint, are you being sarcastic or serious? My answer to your questions will depend on your response to mine.

          • Clint Ufford says:

            Oh wow, sorry, but I am being serious. I should of clarified that, sorry. I very much so believe that Yahweh’s laws are our only saving grace. I would love nothing more than for Christian men to unite, recognize there identity and commit to the prevail His laws.

          • Roger says:

            Thanks for getting back to me. I’m going to take some time to make sure what I say is what I want to say. It may take a few days. Don’t think I’ve gone away.

          • Roger says:

            Clint, I’ve been thinking and praying about this for a few days and see that some of these issues have already been addressed.

            1. T. Edward Price is completely correct when he says that murderers are legally executed, not murdered. It is extremely important to make sure that your language is accurate.

            2. Mr. Price is also correct with his treatment of the question about cutting off a thief’s hand. The Bible demands that the victim be compensated via restitution. Cutting off a thief’s hand does not make restitution and it makes it more likely that the thief will become a burden to society in general. God’s Law is ALWAYS restorative, not destructive.

            I suggest that you read Gary North’s book, Tools of Dominion, particularly chapters 11 and 17 which deal with criminal law and restitution from an economic point of view. You can actually get this book and many others, free of charge, from this website:

            http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm

            3. I may not be in agreement with others who post on this site, but I will say that I believe the Bible does not give us the “right”, responsibility, or authority to kill someone because he worships another god. Or Satan, for that matter. Neither should we lock them up in cages. Rather, we are to understand that “our battle isn’t with flesh and blood, but against powers, principalities, rulers in high places,…” We are involved in a spiritual war and simply killing someone because he believes differently than we do does not make society more righteous. Instead, it makes everyone afraid.

            Christianity tolerates other religions, even Satanism, because it is based on truth. Christianity can allow other religions to flourish because it knows that, in the end, they will be proven to be false and will fade away.

            Furthermore, Christians are commanded to love our enemies or those who are against us and would harm us if they could. Our ultimate goal is to LOVE others into the Kingdom, not to destroy them because they are not part of the Kingdom. I don’t know any self-conscious Satanist or witch, but if I did my prayer would be that they come to an understanding of the love of Jesus Christ and a voluntary forsaking of their held beliefs.

            4. We no longer have to live under the old system in which the land is rested every seven years. The “promised land” was a type of the rest we have in Jesus Christ. Jesus IS our jubilee. We can rest in His work every single day and no longer have to be bound under a law which dictates that we must “trust” we will be able to make it whether we harvest, log, or hunt.

            5. As far as celebrating with millions (or even billions) of others who believe the same way, I would say that we do that all the time now. In fact, every single Sunday millions upon millions of Christians do exactly that. (I’m assuming you are referring to physically going to Jerusalem regularly with others of like mind.) Why would we need to physically go to some “holy” place when we can do the same thing in spirit. We worship God in the Spirit wherever we are and whoever we are with. We do not have to worship Him in some specified location or in some specified building. We have been set free from that and I say, “Hallelu Jah!”

            6. My neighbor IS here if I need him and I am here if HE needs me. We don’t have to wait for some future “manifestation” of the Kingdom to exercise this responsibility and privilege. It is ours right now.

            7. My duty to my daughter is to “train her up in the way she should go”, not to marry her off to any man I approve of or think will take care of her. I am required to love my daughter and part of that love is to do everything within my power to make sure she marries the right man. However, if she was determined to marry someone I didn’t approve of or else to not marry anyone at all, out of love for her I would have to let her go. My daughter is not my property, she is my responsibility until she comes of age or marries. Ultimately, I have to let her go her own way and trust that I have done my best in the sight of God.

          • Roger says:

            Clint, I am in a conversation right now with a woman who thinks and believes that Christianity teaches and promotes radical viewpoints, such as,

            1. Daughters can be sold as sex slaves.

            2. Slaves can be beaten, abused, or killed.

            3. Children can be killed as sacrifices.

            4. Women who have not been married, but have engaged in sex before marriage, should be stoned to death.

            Because she has a flawed view of what Scripture really says, she cannot conceive of Christianity as love in action. Instead, she has turned completely against it and embraced atheism. As long as I am able, I will try to show her the love of God in Jesus Christ and to dispel her wrongly held beliefs about our faith in the hope of restoring her to the Father.

            I have to say that your post above scares me. It makes people afraid. It reinforces stereotypes like the one I have just described. As your brother in the faith, I strongly urge you to tone down your language, if for no other reason than to not offend someone who may be questioning the truth.
            Love without law is licentiousness and fatal. Law without love is tyrannical and deadly. We must have both. Neither love nor law can exist without the other. Please, please be very careful how you say what you say. This is not meant as a criticism or attempt to shut you down, but rather as an admonition to learn how to temper your “law” with love. All of us will be better off for it.
            Thank you for allowing me to converse with you. Be blessed and at peace as you search for the Truth in your own life.

          • Roger, thank you again for your insights.

            As I’m sure you’re aware or at least suspicion, I’m one of those who believe that the entire moral law (commandments, statutes, and judgments) have been brought forward to the New Covenant. I don’t believe it can be otherwise. However, until Christianity takes dominion back from the non-Christians and antichrists, we are unable to implement the judgments (for the most part). I also believe this includes the judgment for First and Second Commandment violations (such as found in Deuteronomy 13).

            Unless Yahweh’s morality changes, how can it be otherwise? Don’t you think that what was a capital crime in His estimation would always be a capital crime? If only for the Mosaic Covenant, wouldn’t that have been bias of the worst kind? Psalm 19:11 describes His judgments (including lex talionis, stoning, and death for First and Second Commandment violations) “righteous altogether.” Would He abolish that which reflects His own righteousness?

            The implications of your following statement concerns me greatly: “Christianity tolerates other religions, even Satanism, because it is based on truth. Christianity can allow other religions to flourish because it knows that, in the end, they will be proven to be false and will fade away.”

            I addressed similar statements from David Barton and others in Chapter 11 of “BL vs. USC.” I hope you will take the time to read this Chapter at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt11.html and also Chapter 17 (in which I address the judgments) at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt17.html.

            Thanks!

          • Roger says:

            All right, Ted, now that we know we’re not in lockstep on every issue, we can agree to disagree on some. I like it!

            I will certainly take a look at the reference you linked to. I may adapt my thinking after that, perhaps not. The short answer, right now, to your questions above, is that I believe ALL the Old Covenant laws and regulations have been fullfilled in Jesus Christ. His law is love. His law says that I am to love my neighbor as I do myself and my God, Who is love. If I love my neighbor who is a Satanist, (humanist, Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic, etc.) if I have to kill him because he doesn’t believe the same way I do?

            Take that logic to an extreme. How can anyone be safe under that mindset if it becomes civil law? I’m not sure I want to find out.

            That being said, I absolutely do agree that we need to look to the Ten Commandments and case laws to find guidelines for today’s society. Notice I said guidelines. We are to adhere to the spirit of the law and not the letter. I think our criminal codes need to follow the spirit of the Ten Commandments while allowing for 4000 years of progress and advancement.

            Love and compliance with the law must be our compelling principle. Anything less is an affront to our God Who is loving and just.

          • Roger, thanks for being willing to look at other views. I hope the chapters I recommended prove useful regardless whether you come out on the other side believing the same as I do.

            I would like to respond to couple things here in your reply: Perhaps you missed my previous response to Clint so I’ll copy here:

            “it’s one thing to openly worship and promote another god and another to merely passively disbelieve in Yahweh or even believe in another god or yourself. One, after convicted in Biblical court (which we do not have
            at this time) requires the death penalty under Yahweh’s righteous
            judgments (Psalm 19:9), the other tolerance and, more importantly,
            evangelism. The same is true with other crimes–even capital crimes.
            Don’t overlook 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.”

            I hope you will see this is an important distinction.

            As it concerns love and its relationship with Yahweh’s judgments, do you think that this relationship between the two was different under the Old Covenant or, more importantly, before the Old Covenant? Also, do you think that Yahweh didn’t intend for the Old Testament Israelites to live by the spirit of law or do you think this was only for the New Covenant? I maintain that numerous passages, such as Isaiah 1, indicate that this was and is Yahweh’s intent both Old and New Covenants alike.

            Let me also share something from R.J. Rushdoony not found in the two chapters I recommended, but in my rewrite of my First Commandment booklet, Lord willing, to be published soon:

            “Rushdoony explains why overt violations of the First and Second Commandments require the death penalty:

            ‘To the modern mind, this seems drastic. Why death for idolatry?
            If idolatry is unimportant to a man, then a penalty for it is outrageous. But modern man thinks nothing of the death penalties for crimes against the state, or against the “people,” or against “the revolution,” because these things are important to him. The death penalty [in Deuteronomy 13:1-18] is not required here for private belief; it is for attempts to subvert others and subvert the social order by enticing others to idolatry. Because for Biblical law the foundation is the one true God, the central offense is therefore treason to that God by idolatry. Every law-order has its concept of treason. No law-order can permit an attack on its
            foundation without committing suicide. Those states which claim to abolish the death penalty still retain it on the whole for crimes against the state. The foundations of a law-order must be protected….

            ‘”Basic to the health of a society is the integrity of its foundation. To allow tampering with its foundation is to allow its total subversion. Biblical law can no more permit the propagation of idolatry than Marxism can permit counter-revolution, or monarchy a move to execute the king, or a republic an attempt to destroy the republic and create a dictatorship.’

            “All gods—whether Caesar or Yahweh—require absolute allegiance. Rushdoony also pointed out important exceptions:

            ‘It should be noted that Deuteronomy 13:5-18 does not call for the death penalty for unbelief or for heresy. It condemns false prophets (vv. 1-5)
            who seek to lead the people … into idolatry. It does condemn individuals who secretly try to start a movement into idolatry (vv. 6-11). It does condemn cities which establish another religion and subvert the law-order of the nation (vv. 13-18)….

            ‘This condemnation does not apply to a missionary situation, where the land is anti-God to begin with: this is a situation for conversion. It does require a nation grounded in Gods’ law-system to preserve that order by punishing … basic treason against it.’….”

            Blessings!

          • Roger says:

            Ted, I’ve been looking at the references you cited above. Is it possible to download a copy of Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance… in .pdf format? I would find that easier to work with. It’s interesting. We’re going to have a good discussion about this.

          • The Chapters I recommended are not from “Law and Kingdom” but from “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution.” The above quotation is from a rewrite of my booklet on the First Commandment, yet to be printed. Which do you want?

          • Roger says:

            I am sorry. Got confused. I would like both in a .pdf if I could get them.

          • Roger, I will email them to you as attachments in two different emails. These tend to get sent to spam folders, so if you don’t receive them in a timely fashion in your in box, check your spam folder.

            I hope they prove beneficial.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Amen Roger. We are made in God’s image and man always wants to go beyond, progress(sometimes too far) revise and improve. To say that God appears to have reviewed, revised, alterd and improved upon His Covenant (is not) to say that He (disapproves of) or admits that the Old covenant was imperfect. It’s not the same thing but (making it the same thing) is the cornerstone of the false premise of this website. I agree with you, and I think the desire to take dominion is wrong and overshadows the entire point of the NT gospels, the lesson from Christ’s temptation in the desert and the Acts and Epistles. Christ overcame the world and He did (not) show dominion. He had it, but He didn’t teach us to have it or teach us to use dominion. He instead gave the example of how we could help people heal, and change the minds and hearts of others by merely speaking the Truth (spirit of the Law) and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit and earthly governance. Why earthly governance? I speculate that it makes things more challenging for us believers, shows God who the doers and the thinkers are and makes it easier for us to understand how and why God will separate the wheat from the tares.That is precisely why the 1st century zealots rejected Christ’s teachings. Because He wouldn’t visibly take His throne and He didn’t teach Israel to take dominion.

          • Roger says:

            Hi, Dis, good to hear from you again.

            Let me say right up front that I have studied Christian Reconstructionism and dominion theology for more than 20 years. I would not be the man I am if I hadn’t embraced it whole-heartedly and applied its principles to my life, the first of which is unconditional surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and obedient submission to the Holy Spirit.

            I believe in “taking” dominion in Jesus’ Name over my sphere of influence which starts with my own heart and spreads from there to infinity. There is no area of my life, including civil government, which is beyond or above the rule of Christ and He expects me to do my part as I understand it.

            This does not mean that I want to see an ecclesiastical government in charge of making sure everyone does what is right. On the contrary, I would work just as hard against that as I do against our present system. God’s government and man’s government currently are at odds with each other. It is only when man’s government comes into compliance with God’s government that we will see the benefits of a righteous government. I think this is what Ted Weiland’s aim is and I applaud him for doing his best to achieve what he believes in.

            That being said, I do have some disagreement with Ted (and others) concerning exactly HOW man’s government will submit and comply with God’s government. As far as that goes, I have some disagreement with some of your views and I am sure that no one will agree 100% with mine.

            You said that we should “leave the rest to the Holy Spirit and earthly governance.” When you say “the rest”, are you referring to civil government? Do you mean that Christians shouldn’t be involved in government? Should Christians attempt to influence government policy over and above the ballot box? Should we strive to overturn unjust laws, such as, Roe v. Wade? Incidentally, Roe v. Wade is 40 years old today and since 1973 appproximately 55 million unborn children have been viciously and brutally murdered. What would Jesus say about that if He were walking the earth today?

            Governance is an inescapable concept. It’s never the question of governance or no governance, but which and whose governance are we going to live under. As Christians, we only have two choices: ours or the world’s. For myself, I prefer to live under ours. We’re seeing the world’s governance play out in stark detail and it’s getting ugly. Real ugly and it’s going to get worse.

            Christians have answers to the issues and problems of today and increasingly we’re experiencing the contrast between our viewpoint and theirs.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Roger,
            I agree. ‘The rest’ means to me, which government God appoints or allows us to live under. I say an earthly governance because anything under the clouds is my idea of earthly. Actually I also believe that we should have many Christians in government influencing policies and law making and interpreting the constitution the way we know it was meant to be interpreted. I also want to see an overall return to the ten commandments influencing our Christian politicians instead of watching them cave to big corps, lobbyists and political correctness. You said it best, there’s a huge contrast between our viewpoint and theirs. We can bridge that gap though. I know we can! I abhor abortion and homosexuality and yes, if Christians want to have a different experience in this nation, we have to get off our comfortable couches and spread the word in larger numbers. But You bettcha we should and can overturn Roe vs wade because it is murder, no word spin here.
            Blessings!

          • Disappointed... says:

            Roger,
            Wow! Well stated! Did you know there are people who refer to us as ‘New Testament Christians’? Is that a complement or what?
            I don’t take the shuttle back and forth between the two covenants. I am firmly rooted in the New Covenant that Christ himself established and died for. Amen!
            Blessings!

          • Roger says:

            Thank you. I try to look at life through the bi-focal lens of common sense and love. Combined with the saving grace of Jesus, I find it hard to beat.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr.Ufford, you want all of our nation’s humanists killed?
            I’ve always understood that people have to commit a crime involving another person(s) before he/she should be executed. Your post is disturbing.

          • Clint Ufford says:

            It is not that I would like to see others killed. I would like Gods Law put in place however. Gods Law calls for people whom are idolatrous to be dealt with accordingly, people who are adulterous to be punished, not honored or respected. I would love to see people that worship tree’s, pray to “mother earth” , people who for some reason actually believe that we as humans are beter off believing in our selves rather than acknowledging that God is good and we are only good through Him. We are garbage without him. “The potential value and goodness of humans” is nothing unless we repent, fall to our knees and pay homage to Yahweh. So yes, when it actually gets right down to it, as a man who actually…. desperately wants to see His PERFECT Law put in place so that we may live in peace, live in love and prosper as His people, I would like to see things being taking care of. Should we allow child molesters, pedophiles, rapist, murderers and sodomites to continue to push Israelites further into the whole, away from God? Maybe we as a nation ( to include South Africa, Australia Canada and ALL of the European contient ) should study the book of Ezekiel daily. According to God, worshipping falsely is a crime and very much more disturbing than one may realize.

          • Clint, one must be very careful on how things are worded, especially when it comes to the judgments, so as not to be misunderstood. That said, it’s one thing to openly worship and promote another god and another to merely passively disbelieve in Yahweh or even believe in another god or yourself. One, after convicted in Biblical court (which we do not have at this time) requires the death penalty under Yahweh’s righteous judgments (Psalm 19:9), the other tolerance and, more importantly, evangelism. The same is true with other crimes–even capital crimes. Don’t overlook 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. I think (I hope) you will agree with this.

          • Clint Ufford says:

            Thanks Ted. Definitely agree.

          • You’re welcome. I was pretty sure you did.

          • Clint Ufford says:

            Agreed completely. I wasn’t trying to insinuate that all that disobey Gods law needed slaughtered….. it would be great if His laws were upheld on a national scale though.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Clint, I love your passion. But, just to second what Ted said, we need to be studious in our arguments, to make sure they are consistent in their Biblical foundations. It’s easy to get swept up in the moment, but there is the danger of mingling Yahweh’s law with the laws of other gods.

            Case in point: In a previous post above, you said “Wouldn’t the crime rate go down if a murderer was murdered for murdering?” We need to always be careful with our terminology. Murder is the intentional killing of one not condemned to death. Murder is unlawful, and requires the death penalty. The execution of that death penalty is justified, therefore, NOT murder. The Sixth Commandment should read “Thou shalt not murder”, not “Thou shalt not kill.” Also, you stated “What if a thief had his hand cut off?” This is where we need to be diligent in not allowing the rhetoric of the false, supposedly “tough on crime, conservative” political right to leaven Yahweh’s perfect law. Cutting off the hand of a thief is an integral part of Sharia law, but can be found nowhere in God’s law. We see all of us, especially Ted, accused of advocating Sharia law by those who don’t understand that Sharia and Yahweh’s law are polar opposites. This is the true mercy in our God’s perfect law. The cutting off of the thief’s hand creates multiple victims, by forever limiting his ability to work to provide for his family, let alone to pay restitution. On the other hand (pun intended), Yahweh’s law demands restitution to the victim, which makes the victim whole, wipes the slate clean, and even allows redemption, as far as the civil record is concerned. I hope I don’t sound too critical. We are on the same page. We just need to understand that we are indeed in a “war of words”, and, therefore, we must continually arm ourselves with the superior language.

            Yahweh bless, and Semper Fi

          • Clint Ufford says:

            Semper Fi, hunh? Same to you.

          • Clint Ufford says:

            Semper Fidelis was beat in my head from drill instructors many years ago in boot camp and I always disliked hearing it after getting off active duty, but you know what? I will “ALWAYS BE FAITHFUL”….. to God. This is a great chat and great place to learn.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Amen!! I had the same experience. But now, it seems to have a much greater meaning, in service to our King.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Ufford,

            I know what you are really trying to convey and your heart is in the right place. Peace and joy to you!!

          • Clint Ufford says:

            The same to you as well!

          • Roger says:

            Disappointed, I am in agreement with you on this. There is a distinct difference between a sin and a crime. We have to know what it is and judge accordingly.
            In this respect, I think that the libertarian philosophy has some merits. I tend to follow that line of thought so long as it only pertains to sin. When an action becomes criminal in nature is the sticking point.
            What is your definition of a crime? How would you make the distinction between a sin and a crime?

          • Roger says:

            Clint, I almost forgot to say this. Fact is that God IS in charge, Christ truly IS our King and the world IS an awesome place to live in. Do you think He’d give us anything less?

            I understand what you’re saying and can appreciate why you might feel as if things are pretty bad right now. Keep in mind that even though it looks bad, it’s been this way before and God’s Kingdom has always survived and prospered. “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end.” (Isaiah 9:7)

            The key word in this phrase is increase. “Of the increase…there shall be no end.” Quite simply, this means that it will grow and grow and grow. His government will never stop increasing. This promise should give us hope. No matter what it seems like on the surface, Jesus is still on His throne, administering His justice, defeating His enemies, and expanding His kingdom.

            The fact that we can’t always see it or that it looks quite dim only proves that we have a long way to go. We shouldn’t expect any quick-fix miracles. God doesn’t (usually) work that way in the lives of individual men and we shouldn’t expect that it will happen in the society we live in. It will take time, perhaps a lot of time, but we, our children, our grandchildren, and generations yet to be born are going to see it happen. One way or another. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little…

            Keep the faith, my friend. Blessings to you.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Ufford,

            God (is) in charge. Christ (is) truly our King! We do live in an awesome world! It is Yahweh’s perfect creation. Each one of us has a life and an opportunity to be a beacon of light, to influence the minds and hearts of our countrymen and the entire world by our Christianity. Please consider re-reading the entire New Testament.

            Galations chapter 1, Colossians chapters 1 and 2 are very relevant to this discussion about our government and our US constitution.

            Though we are not like minded, I wish you the best on your Christian walk and really hope that you will read these chapters and do some soul searching. I don’t debate Christians. The Apostles instructed us not to.

          • Disappointed, you say you don’t debate Christians and, yet, with every post here that is precisely what you have been doing.

            I may be mistaken, correct me if I’m wrong, but I presume that (tragically like most of modern antinomian Christianity) you believe the law has been abolished by Christ under the New Covenant. If this is true, I recommend that you read “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html. I believe it will give you a fresh and balanced perspective on the New Testament passages so often used to allegedly support this dangerous position.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Weiland,
            Yes. You are very presumptuous.
            If you view my posts to the others as debates I won’t try and change your mind. That would be a difficult if not impossible task.

            You’ve practically categorized me, into one of (your many) derogatorily labeled groups of incorrect Christians. I don’t accept.

            No, I don’t think that the Law has been abolished by Christ.

            What I find disturbing is that I recommend the reading of three chapters of the Bible, in their entirety, no ‘one-liners’, no commentary of the scriptures themselves, to another Christian posting in this discussion and that raises a red flag to you.

            Thank you for your recommended reading, but I like to read the Scriptures without the doctrine of men and the word spin.

          • Disappointed, a debate is an exchange of ideas regarding differing viewpoints. Is that not what you have just done in this latest reply? If by debate, you mean something else, please explain.

            I’m clueless as to what you’re referring to as one of my many derogatorily labeled groups of incorrect Christians. Please elaborate.

            I’m also not sure why you’re upset over my questioning if you are not antinomian. I did not accuse you of this but implied that it appeared that you might be, but to correct me if I’m wrong. I’m pleased you let me know and that you do not teach that Yahweh’s commandments, statutes and judgments have not been abolished under the New Covenant.

            Forgive me if I’ve offended you, I assure you this was not my intention.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Weiland,

            I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss this cutting-edge issue. This blog makes it possible and for that I am greatful. Hopefully we will return to the subject at hand, but these excursions are also important.
            You made a presumption or a discernment, as is your God given right, that I am alined with Antimonian Christianity, a tragic and dangerous faction.

            Mr. Weiland’s reponse:

            ” I may be mistaken, correct me if I am wrong, but I presume that (tragically, like most of modern antinomian Christianity) you believe the law has been abolished by Christ under the New Covenant”…you recommended a book to me and then said ” I believe it will give you a fresh and balanced perspective on the New Testament passages so often used to allegedly support this dangerous position.”

            Disappointed’s response:

            To which I reply: I just googled this word and enwikipedia defines it: “the belief that under the gospel dispensation of grace, moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation” then if you’ll click on Anne Hutchinson, then under Antimonian Controversy and read ” The colonist who embraced the law of grace did not call themselves Antinomians, since to them the term implied licentious behavior and religious heterodoxy: the term was was used instead by their opponents, to discredit them.” “The controversy became a struggle for (control) of Massachusetts.” Incidentally, for those who like to romanticize early colonial Christianity, please read about the Nov,7th, 1637 Puritan controversy, trial and outcome. It is a one of many reality checks for those who feel that Puritans were any different than any other Christians past, present and future. After a war of words, individuals were imprisoned and exiled based on their interpretation of the Scriptures.

            What is the take away for me? No, I am not an antimonian Christian, because the term is an oxymoron and a term never used by the people it is attributed to. Those Puritans who deviated from what was thought to be the acceptable interpretation of the NT did in fact believe in the Ten commandments! That’s law isn’t it? They also believed in the moral instructions of the Christ and the Apostles. Since most NT instructions were based from the Law or direct quotes from the Old Testament, that’s Law isn’t it? There is no such thing as Antimonian Christianity. It is a libel used to discredit other Christians. We are warned not to do this to a Christian brother/sister. See all of the epistles. Godly instructions for Christian conduct.

            As for the book, thank you, but I would rather read the Epistles without any doctrinal blinders. I find them very clear and easy to understand at face value the further I move away from commentaries.

            Peace be to this discussion.

          • Disappointed, you’re welcome. However, you have a tendency toward false accusations that I would ask you to curb if you intend to continue with us. Others have already brought this to your attention.

            You wrote, “There is no such thing as antinomian Christianity. It is a libel used to discredit other Christians.”

            If you had to look the term up on the Internet (some of which is not accurate), you’re obviously not very familiar with the term. While I agree with you that the term according to Jude 1:4 is onxymoronic–no true Christian can be antinomian–it is not employed to libel anyone but simply to describe where the majority of modern Christians tragically finds themselves on this issue, and THAT by their own admission, although most are unfamiliar with the term itself. It’s not meant to demean but to identify. (It’s no different than, for example, to identify someone by their beliefs as a Deist.) How do I know this? Because not only is it one of my missions in life to reach antinomians with the truth but I used to be one myself.

            The following is from my next (Lord willing Friday’s) blog:

            “Let me begin this article by defining two terms that may not be known to everyone reading this article: “antinomian” and “pronomian.”

            “The word “nomian” is derived from the Greek word nomos, which means law. An “antinomian [is] a person who maintains that Christians are freed from the moral law by virtue of grace and faith.” (Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, s.v. “antinomian” (New York, NY: Random House, 2000) p. 59.) Conversely, pronomians (predominately found in the Reformed movement) are people, who do not believe a person is saved, justified, or forgiven by observing the moral laws of Yahweh, but who also believe those laws have not been abolished under the New Covenant:

            ‘Do we then make void the law through faith [or grace]? God
            forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Romans 3:31)’….”

            To another matter: If you choose not to read anything of mine that’s, of course, you’re business and I assure you that I’m not offended. However, your statement does make me wonder if you read NOTHING but the Scriptures or do you SOMETIMES read material pertaining to the Scriptures? If the former (as your statement would seem to indicate), I also cannot help but wonder why you’re then here reading what’s being posted on these blogs . You would obviously not being doing so because you think you can learn something from others. This would also mean that your only purpose for being here is to unload on others and, as a woman, that would put you in jeopardy of being guilty of 1 Timothy 2:12.

            I do hope you will appropriately address these issues and continue on with us.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Weiland,

            I have made no false accusations and I can’t even take seriously one of the claims your referring to. If you want to ban me from the site, do it. I have not violated any of the site’s ‘comment policy’ and I don’t meet the last paragraph of the comment policy criteria for being banned. Do as your conscience advises. May I ask you to follow your own policy? You have violated policy #5 All Caps (violation of internet ettiquette) numerous times, and #4 Discourteous behavior (name calling…) for calling me both a antinomian Christian when you couldn’t possibly know that, you admitted you presumed, and for calling me a woman. I am neither.You are the site moderator and the blog’s author, but I ask you to be ethical.

          • Disappointed, I do NOT want to ban you from this site. However, you DO have a tendency toward false accusations that you seem to be unable to see. That four people have now brought this to your attention should at least give you pause and I hope generate some introspection on your part. Perhaps I have the same problem and, if others here think I’ve falsely accused you or anyone else, I would like to know exactly what I’ve said wherein they believe this is the case that I might consider that possibility.

            As for you concerns in this response: In our Comment Policy, “all caps” means ALL–that is, someone’s entire post. It was not meant to inhibit people from employing capital letters for occasional words or phrases for emphasis, particularly since WordPress doesn’t provide for italicizing or underscoring. Nevertheless, thank you for bringing this oversight to my attention. I will make the appropriate change so as to clarify this.

            I will not quibble with you any more as to whether I falsely accused you of being an antinomian. Presumption is inevitable for all of us. It’s what we do with that presumption that makes the difference. By giving you the opportunity to correct me, I eliminated any false accusation or name calling. If anyone thinks I’m in error in this, please explain why.

            Furthermore, it was not discourteous or name calling to identify you as a woman, but an honest mistake. I googled your first name (and, no, I’m not referring to Disappointed) and it is predominately used as a woman’s name. I apologize for the mistake.

            How about we both agree to try to do better and move back to the principle point of this blog.

            Blessings!

          • Disappointed... says:

            Amen! And, Mr.Weiland, you didn’t make a mistake, but you called me a woman. I..am a lady. That is why I have and will be diligent when referring a scripture not to explain it’s meaning (teaching).

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Weiland,

            I will edit out (all) of the posts I sent to you as soon as you give me the green light to. You can do the same or leave yours up, it doesn’t matter to me. Our posts to one another distract from the narrative that you intended for this blog in a serious way, especially as they are not listed in the order they were sent/received. They appear out of context and It’s causing more confusion and ill feelings. It’s a thousand times more important that (I don’t) intentionally or unintentionally put anyone here on the defense, or cast someone in an unflattering light than it is for me to get on this website and talk about the constitution and related subjects. And, I’m not implying that anyone else should take the same position. This is my personal responsibility not to debate. I’ll leave the information on antinomian being an oxymoron because I think it’s important, then I’ll edit out everything else in that post.

            Peace and Joy to you!

          • I don’t think this is necessary.

            Peace and joy to you as well.

          • Disappointed, let me add, that my motivation for providing you the opportunity to correct me in my presumption, was so that I wouldn’t be guilty of a false accusation.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Weiland,

            3 hrs ago you posted that you don’t want to quibble over this issue anymore and exactly 44 mins (after that post) you reopened the subject with me again. I stand by my opinion that I at no time ever accused anyone of anything on this website. Did I make a presumption? Yes, and did you make one? Yes. Did you or I make any accusations (no word spin, please) towards one another? No. That is only my opinion. Please allow me to have it and state it here publically without anymore argument. I apologize for saying anything, intentional or not that bothered you. That said, if you post one more time “you DO have a tendency towards falsely accusing” it would be 2 times redundant and vain triffling according to Colossians. You have said it 3Xs. Let you, me and the readers who are mature, intelligent adults decide for themselves with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and hopefully not add one more word to this bottomless worthless dispute, so as to heal the matter and Glorify God with our show of unworldly and Christ-like conduct. You advised me that we move on to the subject at hand. What better advice to follow then your own. On to the US Constitution and related subjects!

          • Clint Ufford says:

            Brother, constructive criticism is an essential growth tool, ESPECIALLY as Christians. As you can see on here, I have been positively corrected several times thus far. Debating as Christians, as brother & sisters, is perfectly ok. I do not have it all right and I do have room to grow. The fact is, we can keep studying the scripture daily and keep finding new information. The Apostles aslo instructed us to grow, become as wise as we can and seek the truth. Our US constitution is nothing more than a man made doctrine that thousands of me n have died for due to false worship. Our government spends million on infanticide, positive reinforcement and support for sodomites, billions on foreign wars with business that is not ours, we keep adding to this melting pot of a society we have while sprinting as far way from God as we can. Unity between all of us Christians is a must. God will get us all straightened out later.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Ufford,

            I apologize for reiterating what others said almost word for word in my opening statement. To be honest, I didn’t look at other comments before I posted. Oh well, consider it Matthew 18:16/Deuteronomy 19:15 at work.

            Thank you for your show of Godly humility. Others in this blog could use a little humility as that is precious in the sight of our Lord. No, I will not enter into vain trifling. Question/answer yes. Discussion, yes.

            I couldn’t agree with you more that we are living in a post Christian/biblical nation for all of the reasons you’ve mentioned above. And yes Christians need to unite. But a house divided cannot stand. Like you, Mr. Ufford, I want to be continually growing in the wisdom and knowledge of God’s perfect Word, but even more than that, I want to be lead by the Spirit of truth. Like you’ve mentioned, I read and re-read. Always taking something new away. Especially the Gospels and Epistles. Colassians chapter 2 contain the explanations, secrets and mysteries of the Old Covenant. See posts above. Mr.Weiland is uneasy about my recommending a few Scriptural chapters(in their entirety) for you to read. He has reason to be.

          • Roger says:

            Disappointed, thanks for your willingness to humble yourself. As you say, we could all use humility. However, your statement above sounds like you are pointing the finger at somebody (perhaps more than one) due to a perception on your part that he (they) are somewhat less than humble. Would you cite the pertinent passages, please?
            I won’t presume to speak for anyone else, but if I am implicated in this I would like to know about it. If I have exhibited any pride or arrogance in my statements, I want to know so I can correct the wrong attitudes in my own heart.
            If you can’t or aren’t willing to cite “line upon line”, then I suggest you don’t post comments like the one above.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Roger,

            You have said it above “We could all use a little humility.” Did you have anyone particular in mind when you said it? I didn’t think so. I know you were making a generalized comment and so was I. If I had truly been finger pointing, then I would have named names. Let’s not spoil what came before “however.”
            There’s an old saying:
            When someone offers you a gift, if you do not accept it, to whom does the gift belong?
            Peace and Joy to you!

          • Roger says:

            All right, then. Let’s leave it at that. I’m curious about one thing. Why do you call yourself Disappointed? What are you “disappointed” about?

          • Disappointed... says:

            May I call you Roger?
            Thank you for your understanding. Roger, simply stated, I am disappointed at the state of Christianity in general. For me, the meaning of Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ, his apostles, Biblical disciples and the New Testament. To me, at least, it’s a given that OT morality has not been done away with because all OT morality is restated in the Gospel. Christ died to fulfill the laws that were a type of Christ and a covenant that would be replaced with His New Covenant. The NT teachings are all the ‘gentiles’ had, and most wouldn’t even see a written copy of a NT letter, let alone the entire NT for some 150 yrs or more after Christ died. If the NT was good enough for Paul, why not for everybody. You and I are in agreement on many points concerning the Law and I appreciate your positive posting. Thank you for taking an interest.

          • Roger says:

            You may call me Roger. That’s fine.

            The way I see it is that all of us are trying to improve our situation the best way we know how. Because we are all different, we will disagree on some points. None of us is perfect and no one has “arrived”. Therefore, everyone should be willing to listen and learn. One thing I learned a long time ago is that there are always at least two sides (probably more) to every argument.

            “Love your neighbor”, Jesus said. One of the ways I can love my neighbor is to listen to what he’s saying even if I don’t agree with him. I may learn something. If I listen to him with love, he may even listen to me when I speak even though he may not agree with me. He might even learn something.

            One goal I have for my life is to become so mature spiritually that no situation can throw me off balance or upset me. Can’t say I’ve gotten there because the words people say sometimes get to me, which just shows where I need to make changes.

            If you want to see more of my writing, go to my blog.
            http://poorrogersalmanac.wordpress.com

          • Disappointed, please explain why you presume I would be uneasy (a heart judgment that only Yahweh can know) about you recommending any portion or the entire Bible for that matter. To my knowledge you and I have never discussed this chapter, so I’m not sure how you could presume to know that I’m uneasy about you recommending it. I love Colossians 2, as I do all of the Bible.

            You’re correct that it is pertinent to any discussion regarding the correct application of Yahweh’s law under the New Covenant. However, if you believe this Chapter or any New Testament passage does away with Yahweh’s morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments, I would ask you again to take the time to read “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.”

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Weiland,
            I want to answer your questions and explain myself. If you look at my post, I said that you “(have reason) to be uneasy.” I did (not) say that you were uneasy. Still, what I said was bold and the implication is there.

            If you don’t appreciate my making presumptions as to what a person thinks, or may think, then is it fair to say that you shouldn’t be responding with any “I presume that” to any other poster as well?

          • Dissappointed, thank you for the clarification. You’re correct that is what you said.

            As for being uncomfortable with you making presumptions as to what someone else thinks, you’re correct, I think it’s unwise for you or anyone else to do so and that is why in my reply to you I asked you to correct me if I was incorrect in my presumption. This allowed you to have the final say (which you did) rather than me deciding for myself what your position is.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Weiland,
            And I was amused in a sad way with anyone of the many accusations that were directed at me in the past 24 hrs. I read through this discussion before I joined

          • Charlie Steward says:

            I can’t help but respond to this, even though it was not directed to me, personally.

            What we are trying to get people to see is that the Con IS man’s attempt to replace God. Have you ever read the document? It states quite clearly,

            “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be 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 or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

            Can you honestly say this statement is not saying the CON is superior to God’s Law? It’s quite plain English.

            You and PBB keep saying things like, the Con doesn’t do this or doesn’t do that…..but the evidence around us is so overwhelmingly clear, it’s absurd. It has created an insatiable beast who is trying to not only rule this land, but the entire world ( exactly what Patrick Henry said it was designed to do, clear back in 1788 ).

            It’s “articles” are, in most cases, the exact opposite of the way God said things should be done in His creation.

            We’ve given you quite a few examples.

            Most of us here have been where you are today and God has delivered us from that folly. Fine, you think it’s a “holier-than-thou-attitude” to know that you have been delivered from darkness and you want others to be free as well?

            The same things you are saying today are the same things that were said to Christ and His disciples.

            John 5:18 – Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. ( Ultimate “holier-than-thou” accusation. )

            Philippians 2: [4] Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
            [5] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
            [6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: ( a trend among those who follow Christ and not men )

            Today, would someone dare say they are “equal with God?” How dare anyone say they might know something that someone else doesn’t? Who do they think they are?

            I will boldly proclaim to you that I am a son of God, a joint-heir with Christ, an ambassador of the Kingdom of Christ ( literally, yes an ambassador ) and I am here to tell you that if you do not turn away from your idol, the U.S. Constitution, its laws, treaties, etc., you will not enter into the Kingdom of Christ.

            Are we therefore your enemies, because we tell you the truth?

            Stop equating the “preaching of the gospel” with someone who thinks they are better than someone else and open your heart to the truth that you may have missed something by advocating man’s laws to be superior to God’s.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Steward,

            Please feel free to respond to any post I make whether or not it’s directed at you. I didn’t join this discussion because I disagree with everything you and others on this site are trying to get across about the constitution. From what I’ve read here, we share some fundamental beliefs. Because I believe that Christ came in the flesh, the Deity of Christ, as stated in 1 John 4:1-6 you can rest assured I am of God. This is just my opinion, but I don’t think Christians have the God given right to be enemies with Christians. I believe our only true rights come from our Creator and from His perfect Word. What are your thoughts on that? I can’t post more today due to time but I’ll be back to answer some of your questions above. Thank you for your post. Peace and Joy to you!

          • Charlie Steward says:

            Dis – Jesus said His disciples would be known by their love for one another. So, yes, I am in total agreement with your statement above.

            I would like to offer something to you that maybe I have not conveyed clearly enough. For me, the issue is not nearly so much that the Constitution is flawed, or evil, or whatever else ( though I do believe those things ) – the greater issue that I want people to hear from me is that the Kingdom of Christ is real – today. It is a Government. I don’t want to say it’s “like” the U.S., or Canada, or Russia, or any of those, because I believe those “governments” are what the Scriptures call the “domain of darkness” from which we are told to flee. Everyone has a choice in whose Government / government they will be a citizen of. For men, citizenship is a matter of where you were born. This is one of the reasons why, when we enter into the Kingdom / Government of Christ, we must be reborn – born again.

            I believe that all of man’s created “governments” are an affront to the Government of King Jesus. The only legitimate Government that God allows for His people is the Kingdom of Christ.

            Have you ever wondered why the “kings” of Israel as listed in the Scriptures stop during the time of Christ? There is a reason to this that very few have considered. It is because not only is Christ, King of kings, and Lord of lords – but He is the last of the Kings / kings that God allows for His people. His Government is the only Government allowed for the people of God. “Neither is their salvation in any other name…..” I Tim. 6:15….He is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

            True, in the Old Covenant, God raised up evil kings to do certain things. He ordained it, He put them in place.

            However, the days in which God allowed the “nations to walk in their own ways” ( Acts 14:16 ) are over. With the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, the days where God recognized earthly kings – ended. In the New Covenant Kingdom Age of Christ, the only King that is Ordained of God – is Christ. It makes me cringe when I hear people say that God put Obama in his position. Or God put Reagan, or Bush, or whoever, in those positions. Not true in the New Covenant. “Governments” are in place today because they 1) have more guns than their competition; 2) more spending buyer, or both – not because God put them there.

            In the Old Covenant, God allowed the Israelites to have “kings like all the other nations.” This was allowed so that Israel would learn how bad things will become when they trade the perfect Law of God – for their ideas of a “more perfect union.”

            There is a great fallacy upon the world today that says that “governments are ordained by God.” This is man’s attempt to hang onto that original rebellion and in twisting the Scriptures to their own destruction, they try to convince people that God still “ordains” men to set up their own “governments,” when nothing could be further from the truth and will of God for His people.

            My message leans more toward trying to point people to the alternative – the only Legitimately recognized Government – the Kingdom of Christ. Sometimes it seems necessary to try to point out the error in people’s belief systems, in hopes that they will recognize that error ( sin ) and desire to seek something else, namely, the Kingdom of Christ.

            I fully believe this is what the Apostles were doing when they were “preaching the Kingdom of Christ” and it was said about them, “These that have turned the world upside down have come hither also, whom Jason hath received, and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another King, one Jesus. Acts 17.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Steward,
            You may change ‘Dis’ to ‘Sis’. Thank you.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Steward,

            I agree with you on almost every statement in post. There is only one true (honest, just) government presiding over and on the face of this earth and that is the governance of the God of Abraham. Where we differ is thought provoking. I believe that Christ (God) has complete authority of this world at all times, and that the Kingdom of Christ is only realized by Christ’s followers. Most of Christ’s parables in the NT suggest that though the Kingdom is available for (All), not everyone gets in or chooses to get into a Kingdom relationship with Him. Certainly not by way of a lineage, or even obedience or works or even by way of being under a New covenant, but by being (in) the New Covenant to get in to the Kingdom. Or, we are outsiders looking in, and subject only to earthly governance and civil laws.Therefore, it is a choice, and I still don’t know how much of that choice is our own, and how much God’s. The NT suggests it is more God’s than our own.

            Matthew Chapter 7:21

            21 “Not everyone who says (to me) ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only the one who does the (will) of my Father in Heaven.
            22 “Many will say to

          • Roger says:

            Disappointed, I don’t want to get too involved here, but I think that you DID say that Ted IS uneasy. See your quote from a previous post.

            “See posts above. Mr.Weiland is uneasy about my recommending a few Scriptural chapters(in their entirety) for you to read. He has reason to be.”

            You made a statement that Mr Weiland IS uneasy. Yet when questioned about it, you said that you didn’t say that. The facts prove otherwise and the only thing to do now is to admit it, ask for forgiveness, receive it, and move on.

          • Roger says:

            For what it’s worth here, I have disagreements with Ted on some of his positions as I’m certain everyone in this coversation has with some of mine. This is good. I welcome the opportunity to engage and learn.
            I learned something a long time ago. Assume nothing. Assumptions are often wrong. It is far better to deal in the facts of WHAT someone said and to avoid trying to read some hidden motive or meaning into it. Let’s keep this honest, above-board, and interact with each other in a spirit of love, even though we do and will have disagreements.
            All of us are here because we know and believe that something is wrong and want to make it right. We just don’t see eye to eye on the method used to reach that end.
            I am proud (in a humble way) to be a part of this conversation and love each and every one of you as my friend.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Roger, thank you. Amen!

          • Roger says:

            Lest anyone here think that I am taking sides, please note that I have taken Ted Weiland to task before concerning the way in which he responded to another person on another blog completely unrelated to this one. I do not and will not play favorites. I ask and expect that any of you point out to me if I am wrong in the way I speak to anybody else, whether here or elsewhere.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Roger,
            The way these sites are designed, we can’t view the posts in the order they were sent/received. That has created a lot of the confusion for others here in regards to why I made ‘uneasy’ remark.Regretfully, due to time, I couldn’t properly address Mr. Weiland’s question as to why I said it because I was inundated with too many other responses and I answered back in order of importance. He made a presumption about me (which is his right , so long as he doesn’t call out others for doing the same) and I voiced my observation of it back to Mr. Ufford. In that order. I have resolved this issue with Mr.Weiland and we both agree that it’s time to learn from it and move on. There are no sides. As a peacemaker, will you be the example of what you’ve asked me to do.. and forgive me.
            Peace and Joy to you!

          • Roger says:

            Unfortunately, after I had posted my comments above, I did notice that the issue had already been addressed. In fact, there was a considerable amount of conversation which took place which I didn’t know about. I probably wouldn’t have ever seen it except that I had some spare time available.
            I apologize for the intrusion. Forgive me.

          • Disappointed... says:

            I do wholeheartedly. No worries and thank you.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Disappointed, I am obligated to point out that you have more than the required two or three witness to your Ninth Commandment violation: “Mr.Weiland is uneasy about my recommending a few Scriptural chapters(in their entirety) for you to read.” I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you do seek to serve Yahweh, but you just publicly made an accusation about someone that you can not Biblically support. I say this with all humility, that if your heart is in the right place, I know you will do the right thing concerning this. It is one thing to disagree, even vehemently, with one’s views, and still endeavor to find some common ground. It’s another matter altogether to falsely accuse someone in a public forum, especially when said accusations are witnessed by some who might actually know the victim. For the record, I do not know you, and we obviously disagree on various issues, but I would feel just as compelled to defend you in such a matter.
            Blessings in Christ

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            To make these statements is to be ignorant of the constitution and its founding. There is a rich history here that could be discussed but the shallowness of the discussion prevents that discussion. Read the original writings and philosophies before you dismiss the constitution. There is no myth busting going on here. God Bless You.

          • Clint Ufford says:

            Not to sound like a scholar, because I am not, but if you do your best to trace Israel to our shores, you can easily see our heritage as Gods children upheld with the Puritans, the Quakers, the Calvin’s, etc and we can see they upheld Gods laws and functioned properly before the constitution. I am sorry, but I can honestly not see another way around this issue besides that simple fact that those guys wanted to set there own agenda up with there own rules. If not, why did they not fight to uphold Gods laws as there systematic perfection? Is it not in similar comparison to Israel falling away from God all throughout history?

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            What does any of this have to do with the constitution? All I see here are arguments against the constitution. God Bless You.

          • Roger says:

            What does any of this have to do with the constitution? All I see from your vantage point are arguments FOR the constitution.

            Every single comment on this post has something to do with the constitution. That’s what we’re talking about. Your comment is senseless and foolish. That is my answer to your question.

            Why don’t you directly answer any of the questions I have asked? For instance, and I repeat: “Something in the Constitution is fundamentally flawed or else we wouldn’t be in the mess we are. What is it? Where did we go wrong?”

            America is in a bad situation. America’s laws, philosophy, and operating principle are based on the Constitution. These are facts and cannot be denied or swept under the rug. Follow the logic. This should tell any thinking person that the Constitution itself, from which America draws her strength and life, has a problem. What is it?

            Two simple questions. Surely you can tell us the answers. The fact is, that I know what the answers are from my point of view, but you have yet to lay out exactly WHY we are in the mess we’re in and WHERE exactly we went wrong and HOW the Constitution could have allowed us to get here.

            Quit avoiding the subject or you will be seen in the same light as a politician who debates without any good answers.

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            Most of the laws on the books are unconstitutional. Until you understand the constitution there is nothing to debate. God Bless you for starting your journey of discovery.

          • Charlie Steward says:

            You said it! Exactly. That’s what your CON provided for. Patrick Henry said the CON was so flawed, there would be no possible way to keep bad law, oppression, terror, ruin, etc., from destroying the people. Have you read it, yet? You’ve been asked over and over to read his speech. It would only take about an hour or so.

            This is what happens when men try to “form a more perfect union” of their own.

            I’m happy to report to you, today, that thousands of years later, there is still not one bad Law on the Books of God’s Government.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Most on here have an excellent understanding of the CON. It is your blind allegiance to an anti-Christian, humanistic decree that is the stumbling block. You have no idea of the background of anyone on here. Your arguments are typical of the neo-CONservative phony right, an integral part of the false left/right paradigm. What you consider conservative today, would have been decried thirty years ago as radical Marxism. I know this well, because I was one of those condemning the Reagan administration at the time, for abandoning the Constitution, and conservative ideals, and embracing socialism. So anyone who knows me laughs at the foolishness of calling me a Marxist. To call those who base their arguments, as well as their entire systems of belief, on the Bible and Christian law, anti-Christian, only condemns you as an enemy of Christ. Your entire demeanor is reminiscent of Isaiah 5:20 — “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

            “Most of the laws on the books are unconstitutional. Until you understand the constitution there is nothing to debate.”

            The truth is most, if not all, of the laws on the books, CONstitutional or not, are unGodly, unBiblical, and anti-Christian. Until you understand Yahweh’s Holy Writ (the Bible), and Christian law, there is nothing to debate. In order for there to be intellectual discourse, and an intelligent exchange of ideas, all parties must be armed with sufficient facts. You make a grave mistake when you say no one here understands the CON. Most of those here vehemently defended the CON for years, with much stronger arguments than you have offered. That is PRECISELY the reason most on here are well equipped to argue AGAINST the CON. One of the best tools in strengthening one’s own position in a debate, is to be able to argue your opponent’s position better than him. This is one of the fundamental precepts of forensic debate. And guess what? On occasion, one is able to find weaknesses in his own argument as a result. The point is, we can argue the CON endlessly; but, without a standard by which to judge the CON (in this case, the standard is the Bible, and Yahweh’s perfect, immutable law), all arguments are circular, and therefore, COMPLETELY devoid of logic.

            This site is overtly and blatantly Christian in its worldview. If that offends you, so be it. You are free to worship the CON as your heart desires, as do many– LDS (Mormons) in particular. But to condemn those who pursue the worship of Yahweh instead, makes your motive suspect. If you want true debate, search your own heart, and show humility, not pride and arrogance, and you might just find what you are seeking. As the saying goes, “you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”. Try a little honey. Otherwise, you might find yourself in a hornet’s nest instead.

          • Charlie Steward says:

            T. Edward Price – Preach on, brother!!! Awesome response.

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            I’m not afraid of hornets, I have truth facts reason logic and evidence as my protection. Only people that can’t argue the facts resort to personal, politically correct tactics. Good Luck. If the folks on this site are so enamored with the premise that the constitution is not perfect, and ignore that it is administered by imperfect men, there is no real debate about the constitution here on a site that is supposedly about “Constitutional myths”. I find this fascinating. All of the members here simply post links to articles that they think prove something while not making any original arguments on their own OR pile onto statements like lemmings in agreement. Furthermore anyone who does not agree with the premise is ostracized. I firmly believe in individual salvation and the constitution that protects those individual principles. Lots of myth making going on here at this site.

          • PBB, everyone here understands man’s imperfections (including and especially our own). It’s because of man’s imperfections that we maintain it’s better to begin with that which is immutably perfect (Psalm 19:7) than with that which is fickle (admitted by the framers themselves) and therefore vulnerable to only compounded imperfection.

            Perhaps I’ve missed it but I have not witnessed anyone ostracizing you–unless, by ostracizing you mean not agreeing with you. If you think about it, as administrator, I’m the only one who has the ability to ostracize you from this discussion and I have no intentions of doing so.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Psychic: “I’m not afraid of hornets, I have truth facts reason logic and evidence as my protection. Only people that can’t argue the facts resort to personal, politically correct tactics.

            Me: No one here has seen facts, reason, logic, or evidence in any of your arguments, just mindless drivel, repeated incessantly.

            Psychic: “If the folks on this site are so enamored with the premise that the constitution is not perfect, and ignore that it is administered by imperfect men, there is no real debate…”

            Me: Logical Fallacy. It is of absolutely no concern that the administrators are imperfect men. Even perfect men, if that were possible, could not make an atheistic, humanistic, polytheistic decree palatable.

            Psychic: “Its not a foregone conclusion that we must throw out the constitution that served this great country and its people with the greatest protections and freedoms the world has ever seen. Furthermore this is not a myth since it is obvious to everyone.

            Me: Yahweh’s law, as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments, provided ancient Israel with the GREATEST protections and freedoms the world has ever seen. THIS is not a myth, since it is obvious to everyone with “eyes to see, and ears to hear”, and a Bible.

            Psychic: “The Real Myth is that people that don’t understand or stand up for the constitution know better than the founders and the principles of that constitution…”

            Me: I stood up for it by serving as a United States Marine, as did Mr, Clint Ufford. Did you? I stood up for it by helping to defeat, as a high school sophomore, U.S. Representative Otto Passman, 30 year incumbent of the Louisiana 5th District. Did you? As a high school senior, after having embraced libertarian ideals, I worked, unsuccessfully, to defeat the Congressman I helped to elect 2 years earlier. Did you? As a college student in Houston, in the early eighties, I volunteered in the office of U. S. Representative Ron Paul. Perhaps you have heard of him? It was from Mr. Paul and his staff that I received my true education in the Constitution. Who was your mentor? I further put that education into practice by working for Ron Paul’s 1988 Presidential campaign on the Libertarian Party
            ticket. For whom did you campaign? But, most of all, it was Yeshua the Christ who opened my eyes to my sin of idolatry, and led me to repent of worshipping a man-made institution.

            Psychic: “All of the members here simply post links to articles that they think prove something while not making any original arguments on their own OR pile onto statements like lemmings in agreement.

            Me: This is where I might break with my standard decorum, and if this is perceived to be out of bounds with the spirit of this forum, I pray Mr. Weiland removes this post, and he and others should properly rebuke me. Unless you can show me ONE link to ANY article I have posted, or shown ONE instance of me being a lemming, you will have publicly shown yourself to be a liar. You made an alleged statement of fact. The only acceptable response would be an evidentiary based quote from one of my prior posts, not some subjective interpretation. One thing that speaks volumes about your character, is that you hide behind a username to make incendiary, insulting comments. If you choose to remain anonymous, that is certainly your right to do so. But, you can clearly see that most on here are not afraid of public scrutiny.

            Psychic: “I can sum up our problems in one word. PROGRESSIVISM.

            Me: Your arguments sound like nothing more than Glenn Beck redux. You decry progressivism, and claim that we have been under its influence for 100 years. That would mean that you place the genesis of the modern progressive movement within the Woodrow Wilson regime. And if that is the case, you are 50 years too late. Abraham Lincoln was as Marxist and progressive as any president since, and more than most. Shouldn’t the fact that your religious canon, the U.S. CON, couldn’t survive even 70 years, without providing us with a tyrannical butcher in Lincoln, reveal problems with the original text itself. If you truly want to see an improvement, read the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. It improved upon the U.S. CON, but was still inherently flawed.

            Psychic: ” I firmly believe in individual salvation and the constitution that protects those individual principles.

            Me: Although individual salvation is indeed absolutely essential, by itself, it leads to mere Christianity. On the other hand, salvation on a personal AND national scale leads us back into Christendom, where Christian men, ruling by Yahwehs’s perfect, immutable laws, restore Dominion to the Kingdom of Christ.

            Unless you can PROVE you understand the CON better than I do, let alone those here who are much more erudite on the subject than I could ever be, act like a MAN and quit slandering and insulting Christian men whose sole purpose is to “preach the gospel of Christ”, and advance His Kingdom. Disagree all you want. But please do so in a civil, courteous, respectful manner, or expose yourself as an agent provocateur.

          • As a reminder to ALL who post comments here, let’s eliminate the inflammatory language. Your points are only diminished by such language.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Ted, duly noted. I apologize for getting emotional and over the top. I am usually better composed, but that does not excuse inflammatory comments of a personal nature. Thank you for correcting me, and if you feel the cause to be best served by removing my post, please do so.
            Thank you, and Yahweh bless you.

          • Edward, thank you for you humble spirit. I will not remove it unless PPB requests it.

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            I appreciate your coming out in the open and exposing yourself for everyone to see. You are rabidly anti-America & anti-Christian in your baseless personal attacks. BTW you need to look at the site rules…God Bless you for sharing your true self. I for one sincerely appreciate your candor in coming out and admitting to your progressive ideology. Nobody is claiming that any particular president is any more or less progressive but your position firmly against a great president that freed the slaves in America and stood up for Godly American principles is breathtaking. Your oath to protect and defend the constitution is being broken here for all to see. This site is here to diminish the very thing you promised god you would protect and defend. Your projections that I am a provocateur are amusing while you outright intend to provoke me. The hypocrisy of your rants and this site is inescapable. Have a Blessed Day.

          • PBB, please note Mr. Prices’ apology to you posted an hour or so ago. I think your comments (along with most of the rest of ours) could use some “toning down” as well.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Psychic, concerning my previous comment directed toward you, please accept my apology for my tone, and for all incendiary and inflammatory comments. Personal attacks are never a suitable instrument for promoting the faith. If you would like the comment deleted, please ask Mr. Weiland to do so.

          • Roger says:

            I rest my case.

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            Don’t pat yourself on the back. You never made a case. The only thing you have done is point out the obviousness that the Men have corrupted the founding principles and documents of our country. If you think this means we should throw out the constitution you have already decided before you began. Its not a foregone conclusion that we must throw out the constitution that served this great country and its people with the greatest protections and freedoms the world has ever seen. Furthermore this is not a myth since it is obvious to everyone. The Real Myth is that people that don’t understand or stand up for the constitution know better than the founders and the principles of that constitution, and blame the founders for its flaws and not the men that have corrupted it. The American constitution needs to be restored to its original intent not thrown out as this site seems to be saying. It is pure sophistry to conflate the constitution as a theocracy and to make claims that anyone who supports the constitution, even in its original intent, is baal worship. These idolatrous arguments are weak and baseless.

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            I can sum up our problems in one word. PROGRESSIVISM.

          • Roger says:

            Then REGRESSIVISM should solve all our problems.

      • Charlie Steward says:

        The only true liberty that has ever been achieved on this continent was in the 1500s and 1600s before any of the “states” came into existence. This is the honest appraisal of history that is lacking in what most people call – “the founding principles of America.” The “founding of America” and the founding of the United States of America are as polar opposites as night and day.

        “America” was founded on the principles derived from the Scripture based on the understanding that Christ is King and Yahweh is the only Lawgiver. This is clearly seen in the founding documents such as The New Haven Covenant. It was the founding of America – based on the precepts of the Scriptures – which “made America great.” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ct01.asp

        The blessings from God were great on those people who formed their communities based on those principles – but when their descendants turned away from those precepts and replaced them with “their laws, and their constitutions, and their treaties,” those blessings began to turn to cursings.
        It is true that “America” was great, and “America” was founded on the principles of liberty – but the United States of America merely road the coat-tails of “America” and tried to claim something as her own but has failed miserably because the “god” of the United States is not the same God as “America.”
        From 1787 until today, there have only been a few short years where the people of “United States of America” have had peace. The “government” they created has been at war with some other “country” for nearly every single year of its existence. They even had a war where brothers were killing brothers and fathers were killing sons.

        I suggest you read the writings of Patrick Henry where he begged the people of Virginia NOT to accept the U.S. Constitution. His reasons were not my reasons – but from the viewpoint that you have – one cannot read Henry’s writings and deny that he was not dead-on accurate with his predictions concerning what would happen to liberty and the “founding principles” if the Constitution were accepted. http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html

        He called the Constitution an “alarming transition” and one that would “ruin and oppress the people.” He also – addressing the exact same words you used – explained why the Constitution would not work – no matter how “virtuous” the people or their “leaders” were. He said even if by chance, the people did elect a “virtuous” person, the framework of the Constitution would cause that person to become an oppressor.

        The ultimate reality is that true freedom only comes from the author of freedom and that is Christ the King. The perfect, unchanging Laws of God that so many people despise – for no other cause than for a lack of knowledge – are the only hope for not only America, but for the world.

        It’s phenomenal reading from the correct perspective. I highly suggest Ted’s books to you as a starting place.

        Lastly, you know nothing about me or my “liberty” which I’ll assure you is far greater than anything you have or have probably ever even heard of, and the simple truth is, the U.S. government and it’s “laws” are the single greatest threat to my liberty that I face on a day to day basis. My “liberty” has NEVER been protected by the Con.

    • Clint Ufford says:

      Amen.

      • Charlie Steward says:

        The “Constitutional Patriot” community has always been on my heart. I don’t know of too many people who are seeking truth, that have not had, at least for a while, come through the thinking that the Constitution, founding fathers, etc., had good, even Godly intentions. It’s a very clever trap that has kept a lot of very well-intentioned people from truly understanding freedom and the source of true freedom.

        Having been around some of them for more than 30 years, I believe many in the “Patriot” community desire truth and want to live free, but when they see the “churches” supporting evil, namely that “government is ordained by God and one must obey everything a government says”, they wrongly associate the “churches” with the true Messiah of the Bible, who is in actuality, the ultimate freedom fighter and King of mankind, and not some panty waste gov’t mouthpiece spouting the party line. He was in fact, executed by the state via the “preachers” who delivered Him up, labeled a terrorist, seditionist, law-breaker, etc.

        The “churches” are only an extension of the state and are in place to promote the agenda of the state. They are NOT the representatives of Christ – and as such – because they have made claim that they are the representatives of Christ – some people who are seeking truth will not even consider what the Word really says, because they throw the proverbial “baby out with the bathwater.”

        While being held captive one day as a very young man, I thought to myself, “If I’m going to be in this place, it’s going to be for a much better reason than for believing I’m fighting for a man made document.” The “arresting officer” that day mocked me when I made mention of the Constitution to him.

        Along the journey, I began to understand more and more that if you are going to live and even think differently than what the world thinks is normal – you must have higher authority to do so than what man has to offer. What man offers just isn’t worth it.

        When I realized the truth and validity of the Kingdom of Christ as a present day reality, then I began to look closer at His Laws, Ways and the mind of God, and the first thing that was revealed to me, was that the concept of “rights” was a trap designed to keep me enslaved to someone or something.

        “Men’s governments” want their adherents to believe they have “rights” and that they are there to protect those “rights.” People will do almost anything when they believe this to be true.

        In the Kingdom of Christ, men have no rights at all. But what we do have is far greater. We have “responsibilities” and commands to obey those responsibilities. Our authority to live, breathe, act, etc., comes from the Creator and it is actually an affront to Him to go to man to ask for permission to do something He has already commissioned us to do.

        And, the greatest of all those commissions, is to recognize that the Son was sent to make His people FREE, and if the Son therefore shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.

        This is why when the Roman soldier told the Apostle Paul that “by a great sum, he had obtained his freedom”, Paul responded, “I was freeborn.”

        We are such a mixed up civilization today. The other day, I saw a bumper sticker on a car that said, “Freedom isn’t free.” That’s true when that “freedom” originates with men. Men’s version of freedom comes at a great cost of blood and $ – and sadly, the outcome of the great loss of life and resources, still doesn’t provide freedom.

        God’s offering of freedom is simply, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”

        Obedience to His Spirit, His Law, His mind is the ONLY way for any group of people to achieve true freedom. He offers this freely to His creation. It is a Government that is altogether perfect, flawless, without corruption and with total justice. Why we would seek anything other than this is probably the greatest question for mankind.

        • T. Edward Price says:

          Mr. Steward, it is an absolute pleasure to read, AND learn, from your every post. You obviously were given this realization by God many years before most of us. I see myself in all of the most ardent arguments of the “Christian Constitutionalists”. I was one of them. I could out “David Barton” Mr. Barton himself. I thank Yahweh that he opened my eyes to the truth. Although I have come a long way, I am humbled and grateful for the insight and wisdom of Warriors such as you and Mr. Weiland! Thanks for all you have to offer.

          • Charlie Steward says:

            Thank you for your kind words.

            I had a brief “stint” in the Constitutional Patriot world about 30 years ago. It was a valuable lesson for me. I’ve been walking in the Kingdom as it has been revealed to me from the Scriptures for nearly 30 years now. I am grateful to still be learning, as this has been the most eye-opening journey one could ever imagine.

        • Roger says:

          Mr. Steward, that is an excellent way of putting it. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Incidentally, I posted an article on my blog a month or so ago on this topic in which I arrived at basically the same conclusion. You can see it here:
          http://poorrogersalmanac.wordpress.com
          Scroll down to “Rights and Metamorphosis.
          Thanks very much.

          • Charlie Steward says:

            Roger, I read your blog. It is exciting to see Yahweh bringing his people into unity. That is what He wants for His people. A few weeks ago Ted and I were talking and I said, “Are you sure you have never read my books?” He replied “No, I’ve never read them. ” It was really awesome because as I was reading some of Ted’s work, some of it seemed to be word for word the same way I understand some things. That is the work of Yahweh bringing His people together, a promise He made to those who love His Law.

          • Roger says:

            I didn’t know you had written any books. What have you produced? How can I see your work?

  2. Davy Crockett says:

    Hey whats your email PB Brother?

  3. Roger says:

    Ted, I have been watching this conversation and contributing from time to time. It’s been quite interesting and seems to be quite a point of discussion. Thanks for starting the ball rolling.

  4. Tim Pixler says:

    Forcing the law of Yaweh on people is fruitless. The constitution does not give man rights, it inhibits governments ability to infringe upon those rights. We are born with rights and receive them from God. Realizing this is truth, forcing our opinion upon others is just like sodomites forcing their opinions upon us. We have the right to choose who we will obey. As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord. Though the law has been distanced from the Church with it’s teaching about grace, it is still very much in force. What saves a man is the death of our savior. We are justified and sanctified because of His victory over death, the great gospel of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. Those Romans saw Jesus death, and one said, “never a man who talked like this”. They recognized He was who He said He was, and eventually Cornelius was given the opportunity to receive life eternal through the preaching of the gospel. “While Peter preached, the Holy Ghost fell on them and…they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God…and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. No man comes to the Father, except by me(Jesus)…the spirit must draw them near. God adds daily to the Church, such as should be saved”. Our constitution is perfect for human government, it’s up to us to obey the Lord!!

    • T. Edward Price says:

      Welcome Tim. Please hang out here awhile.

      “Forcing the law of Yaweh on people is fruitless.” Amen. I don’t believe Mr. Weiland is advocating forced submission to Yahweh’s law. Submission in deed alone, without a change of heart, is nothing but rebellion. The problem is a heart problem at its very core. However, there can be no doubt that our refusal to seek the heart of Yahweh has led to us lusting after foreign gods (idols) such as the Declaration and the Constitution.

      “We are born with rights and receive them from God.”

      This is one of the many deceptions that have crept into modern day judeo-Christianity over the past three hundred years. The whole concept of “natural rights” was actually debated by the early Church fathers. It is not Biblical in origin. The Bible teaches us that we have God-expected RESPONSIBILITIES, not God-given “rights”. All rights include the option NOT to exercise said rights. God-expected responsibilities allow for no “opt out”. The responsibility to protect one’s family is but one of many examples. One may have the “right” not to protect himself, but has the MANDATED responsibility to protect his family, and even community.
      Check out the commentary on the same site for a better understanding of this concept:

      http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/rights-rights-everyone-wants-their-rights/

      No one here is claiming that following the law, in itself, will return us to better glory, let alone save us. Of course, we are saved by grace. There has to be a change in the hearts of man. But, obedience to Yahweh’s law must be an integral part of our national direction.

      “Our constitution is perfect for human government, it’s up to us to obey the Lord!!”

      Amen to the latter part, but I respectfully submit that Yahweh’s perfect, immutable law, as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments is the ONLY system that could be called “perfect for human government.

    • Tim, I’m pleased you joined the discussion.

      No one here is really suggesting forcing Yahweh’s law on anyone but instead establishing government upon His law. That said, a case could then be made that for some people that interprets into forcing His laws,such as the Sixth Commandment that condemns murdering, on people who prefer to murder others. But, then that could be said of any governments laws, regardless their origin. Please consider the following related excerpt from Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html.

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

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

      I hope you will see it’s a serious mistake to equate enforcing Yahweh’s law with the sodomites forcing their opinions upon us.

      You stated that “[w]e are born with rights and receive them from God.” I disagree. Please see “Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights” on this same blog.

      The Constitution may be perfect for human government but it certainly doesn’t comport with Yahweh’s morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. See “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html in which I devote a chapter to examining every article and amendment by Yahweh’s immutable righteousness as codified in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11).

      I’m pleased you recognize (as I think everyone else here does as well) that our salvation comes through Christ’s blood atoning sacrifice and resurrection from the grave and not from keeping His law.

  5. Tim, I’m pleased you joined the discussion.

    No one here is really suggesting forcing Yahweh’s law on anyone but instead establishing government upon His law. That said, a case could then be made that for some people that interprets into forcing His laws, such as the Sixth Commandment that condemns murdering, on people who prefer to murder others. But, then that could be said of any governments laws, regardless their origin. Please consider the following related excerpt from Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html

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

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

    I hope you will see it’s a serious mistake to equate enforcing Yahweh’s law with the sodomites forcing their opinions upon us.

    You stated that “[w]e are born with rights and receive them from God.” I disagree. Please see “Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights” on this same blog.

    The Constitution may be perfect for human government but it certainly doesn’t comport with Yahweh’s morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. See “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html in which I devote a chapter to examining every article and amendment by Yahweh’s immutable righteousness as codified in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11).

    I’m pleased you recognize (as I think everyone else here does as well) that our salvation comes through Christ’s blood atoning sacrifice and resurrection from the grave and not from keeping His law.

  6. Lee says:

    “The
    only thing you have done is point out the obviousness that the Men
    have corrupted the founding principles and documents of our country.”
    -PBB

    As pointed out, the founding
    principles and documents of this country were Christian. There’s an
    interesting double standard here. It’s patriotic to rally behind the
    false founding principles/documents (Constitution) and rally for a
    return to it, but the same sentiment towards the true founding
    principles/documents is not. If the latter gave rise to the former,
    shouldn’t “returning” to the latter be the answer for
    Constitutionalists? If the Constitution was born out of a country
    that was under the governance of Biblical law wouldn’t those
    conditions needs to exist to go back to the Constitution? Perhaps
    argue that, with such conditions, we can make an even better imperfect
    Constitution? The Constitution won’t work for a people without
    virtue, correct? Since the Constitution isn’t the source of that
    virtue, then “returning” to it cannot return us to the
    moral state that existed in the USA when it was written.

    “When
    the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald
    the end of the republic.” – Ben Franklin

    Does anyone have
    documented when the first bribe was accepted under this Republic by a
    representative or voter? I would guess that the practice is not new.
    Does anyone contest that bribery is un-Christian and un-Biblical?
    What is it when a political party promises entitlements to win votes?
    Or openly pays people to cast a vote? I’m sure people will start
    playing fair if we just “go back to the Constitution”.

    Lately
    the revelation in politics is how the Obama administration is never
    seen as governing and thus he’s never seen as attached to his ungodly
    policies. He’s waging an endless campaign. It’s the same thing with
    the Constitution and Constitutionalists. People laud it and make
    excuses for it. Talk about how great it is. Yet, how “man’s
    best” has transformed this society into a mecca of immorality at
    world record speed is never chalked up to the Constitution itself.
    The Constitution is the good guy. It’s trying to fix this mess we’re
    in just give it a chance. Some other factors or someone else is
    responsible for all these problems. People are using it wrong.
    Voting fixes things just keep voting nevermind all the voting we and
    our forefathers have ever done have put us right where we are in
    2013. Let’s just “go back to it”. The Constitution is
    never seen as governing by it’s proponents.

    I find it
    interesting that the more one reads of the “law & prophets”
    of the Constitution the more statements like Ben’s is found. These
    men “prophesied” the utter failure of their Constitutional
    experiment with the same intellects they used to create it. So
    eloquently! The “delegates and representatives” of
    Biblical law do just the opposite concerning Yahwehs’ law.

    From
    Christian Constitutionalists I see this: The idea that an All
    Intelligent Being revealed Himself to man and bestowed a perfect law
    to govern every level of life on Earth . . . well what’s so special
    about that? I see your Creator and Sustainer of the universe, and
    raise you a bunch of men who wrote a horribly flawed set of “laws”.
    Really?

    I
    wonder what Christian Constitutionalists would choose in a
    hypothetical situation: They have to make a choice in government.
    They are the deciding “vote”. We cannot “go back”
    to the Constitution. That’s not an option. We can however write a
    brand new Constitution from scratch or go back to the laws of Yahweh.
    I’d love to see the results of a survey like that.

    “The
    point of the website? What is it? I thought it was to encourage
    conversation and sharing viewpoints.” -Dis

    Can
    you clear something up for me that I’m trying to get a understand
    about this site and it’s community? -Dis

    Each one
    of us has a life and an opportunity to be a beacon of light, to
    influence the minds and hearts of our countrymen and the entire world
    by our Christianity.-Dis

    . . .Or. . .

    “As
    for the book, thank you, but I would rather read the Epistles without
    any doctrinal blinders. I find them very clear and easy to understand
    at face value the further I move
    away from commentaries. -Dis”
    -Dis

    Which is it?

    “Philip
    ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do
    you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “Well,
    how could I, unless someone
    guides me?” And he invited Philip
    to come up and sit with him.” Acts 8:30~31

    “Now
    these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they
    received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures
    daily to see whether these things were so.” Acts 17:11

    There
    is plenty to learn here and blinders are not always doctrinal. As a
    student of the NT myself I understand that the NT is largely a
    commentary on the OT. The OT is quoted over and over in the NT.
    Christ moved His people away from the traditions of men back to the
    moral grounding of the OT. There is no OT vs NT morality; it is all
    the same. There is One God, not two:

    “All scripture given
    by inspiration of God, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
    correction, for instruction in righteousness:” 2 Tim 3:16

    All scripture, including
    the OT, is profitable for doctrine.

    Others
    in this blog could use a little humility as that is precious in the
    sight of our Lord. No, I will not enter into vain trifling. -Dis

    . . .
    or. . .

    .
    . .you didn’t make a mistake, but you called me a woman. I..am a
    lady. -Dis

    This statement is vain
    trifling in the purest form.

    The
    thing that does bother me about this site is that so many posters
    don’t practice what they preach! -Dis

    Or preach two things and
    can’t decide which one to practice! How vexing!

    Forcing
    the law of Yaweh on people is fruitless. -Tim
    Pixler

    I think the
    answer to this lies in the instructions to not yoke with unbelievers,
    to separate, and to generally invest and reserve the blessings that
    come from following Yahwehs’ laws for brothers and sisters. It seems
    to be what gave rise to the transformation here in colonial America.
    Paul advocated not being dependent on the worldly civil government,
    but in some cases still used it to Gods’ purpose such as I Cor 5:5.

    A good point
    made by Ted in one of his messages was how people came from near and
    far to find King Solomon. The wisdom and prosperity present as a
    result of Gods’ Kingdom in the state it was in beconed to people.
    They saw something different about the nation of Israel when it was
    in harmony with Yahwehs laws. Christ as He walked the earth was the
    same way. People loved Him and, if anything, He had to force His way
    away from people because they just wanted to touch Him or be around
    Him. Christanity has to stand out from the Constitution and be as
    dependent on it as the early colonists were on the King of England or
    even less so. The Constitution does force it’s laws on people,
    domestic and abroad, is another reason why Christian’s should not
    support it.

  7. Frank Silver says:

    Good news to everyone reading this comment. I want to share my testimony on how i belong to the world famous illuminate fraternity society, and how i have become more famous, by acquiring huge wealth, riches and fame. Here is how my life changed. A friend of mine that was always giving me money, because he was very rich, wealthy, famous and successful. On one beautiful day, he said to me that he is not going to give me any money, that he is going to show me the way to be successful in life. So i was very happy, i never knew he was a member of the great illuminate society. So i was initiated to the world famous illuminate society, and few days later, i was awarded a contract worth millions of Dollars. Right now as i speak, in my business i am doing very well, i travel the world on business deals, i am now the one that gives money out to people, before life was so hard for me and my family. If you want to belong to us today? Send us an email now> Worldofriches@gmail.com and your life will change for good.

  8. ireAmerica says:

    This is America where we are all bound by our Constitution, whose main purposes are to prevent tyranny over us by our government and to remind us that the free will granted to us by our Creator is sacrosanct (so that we do not violate each other’s free will).

    Let’s look at the opening phrase of the First Amendment; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… “. Meaning that the government is forbidden from instantiating or destroying faith, ritual or attendance.

    Part of the rationale can be found in history, littered with “god”-kings and the horrors they visited upon the people. Part of the rationale comes from segregating what belongs to God vs what belongs to Caesar. To be clear – the dispensation of God’s law is outside the purview of Caesar because Caesar is (always) a flawed and venal human.

    Our Constitution is deliberately not a grant of rights – those come from God, but is rather an unequivocal set of restriction against government tyranny. The rest is our individual responsibility, to use our God-given free will to lead moral lives.

    • IreAmerica, thank you for joining us.

      You wrote, “To be clear – the dispensation of God’s law is outside the purview of
      Caesar because Caesar is (always) a flawed and venal human.”

      I gather from this that you believe finite man is better governed by his own fickle edicts (Matthew 15:6-9) than he is by Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11).

      No one here is talking about forcing conversion upon anyone (an impossibility to begin with), but by what standard (man’s or God’) society is best governed.

      Also, except as PERHAPS as the Paper’s timekeeper in Article 7, the Constitution knows nothing of God and God and His Word know nothing of optional rights. Instead, the Bible is replete with non-optional God-expected responsibilities.

      If I might, I would suggest the following two blog articles for your consideration.

      1) “375 Years Later: Constitution vs. Constitution” at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/375-years-later-constitution-vs-constitution/

      and

      2) America’s Hell: Paved With Rights at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/americas-hell-paved-with-rights/

      • ireAmerica says:

        Ted:

        Au contraire. When each of us govern ourselves under God’s law, that minimizes the “need” for secular government.

        Nowhere did I state that man is best governed by man’s own fickle
        edicts (or capricious mores). In fact it is quite clear that salvation
        (or damnation) depends upon one’s individual faith and actions, because
        one is judged individually before God.

        A person can only lead a life pleasing to God by individually and personally subordinating him/her self to God’s law. In other words, it is for each of us our inescapable responsibility to approach God and follow God’s law, because it is our individual consequence to meet God’s judgement.

        There is no societal or collective structure which can adjudicate “for” God. Every single attempt in history has ended terribly.

        Finally, I know that “no one here is talking about forcing conversion… “, but that is one of the tyrannies which comes out of placing humans in charge of enforcing God’s laws – because humans are imperfect.

        • There you go again! The only option to humans in charge of enforcing God’s laws is humans in charge of enforcing man’s “laws.” Thus, whether you realize or not, you’re implying that man is best governed by man’s own fickle edicts rather than Yahweh’s perfect moral law.

          Furthermore, you’re persisting in mixing individual and societal responsibility.

          Any attempt in history to adjudicate Yahweh’s societal law that has “ended terribly” only goes to further prove my point–that is, what comes from even the slightest deviation from Yahweh’s perfect standard, per Psalm 19:7-11, etc.

          • ireAmerica says:

            There YOU go again insisting that human government can “stand in” for God.

            It’s my responsibility and your responsibility (as individuals) to follow God’s law. God will take care of the judgement and enforcement. It is NOT the job of society to attempt any sort of collective salvation.

            And that brings us to the one correct part of your argument; ANY law administered by humans is either imperfect in structure (human law), or even if perfect in structure (God’s law) then imperfect in administration (by imperfect humans).

            So even perfect laws will be imperfectly administered by humans. One would have to BE God to enforce God’s laws with God’s perfection – and that is a conceit practiced by many EVIL ones through history. Let’s not go down that road.

          • IreAmerica: “There YOU go again insisting that human government can “stand in” for God.”

            That’s your argument, not mine. I reject human government, meaning man’s government based upon man’s fickle edicts and instead promote Yahweh’s government based upon His perfect law and altogether righteous civil judgments.

            You also wrote, “So even perfect laws will be imperfectly administered by humans.”

            True! And your solution? For man to reject Yahweh’s perfect societal laws and replace them with man’s imperfect fickle edicts.

            Man is far less likely to mess it up beginning with Yahweh’s perfect law than he is with man’s fickle edicts.

          • ireAmerica says:

            Ted, if you read Exodus again you will find that God’s laws are addressed to you (and when I read Exodus, the commandments are addressed to me).

            God’s laws are for you and for me individually.

            You acknowledged my statement that even perfect laws will be imperfectly administered by humans. My solution – try to follow God’s law. That’s it. That’s all the “legitimate government” there is.

            There never will be a perfect Caesar. But when Jesus returns, THEN we can have the government you suggest.

          • No, I think you should read Exodus again, beginning, for example, with Exodus 18, particularly Verses 20-26.

            What do you propose to do with murders, rapists, thieves, and other criminals? They will either have to be governed by Yahweh’s perfect law and righteous civil judgments or man’s fickle edicts. To this point, you’re wanting to leave them to man’s fickle edicts, and what if those edicts promote, let’s say sodomy as a normal lifestyle or infanticide (wrongly called abortion), as perfectly acceptable?

          • ireAmerica says:

            Murder the murderers? Rape the rapists? Or forgive thieves and other criminals (as Jesus did)? And you are correct; secular law is flawed, incomplete and often evil.

            But who among us will presume to administer God’s law – me? And then, who among us is credentialed to adjudicate God’s law – you? And who could resist the power to mete out God’s justice?

            We administer secular law poorly enough to foretell disaster were we to take the imprimatur of being in charge of God’s law.

            History backs my argument. And we are directed to await the return of Jesus to experience the reign of God’s law on earth.

          • There you go again promoting man’s fickle edicts (including infanticide and sodomy) for society as preferential to Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments. I wonder what He thinks of your choosing man’s laws over His!?!

          • T. Edward Price says:

            “Murder the murderers? Rape the rapists? Or forgive thieves and other criminals (as Jesus did)? ”

            Where do you find that in Scripture? Yahweh’s perfect, immutable law MANDATES the appropriate punishment for all crimes. Stoning a murderer is NOT murder, but righteous judgment. Have you read the law? Rapists are to be put to death, along with kidnappers and homosexuals caught in the act. To withhold that is to do violence against God’s law.

            “And who could resist the power to mete out God’s justice?’

            This is typical of man’s flawed reasoning. The truth is who would WANT to stone one guilty of a capital offense? If you understood the law, you would know that the victim or the victim’s family were to cast the first stones, followed by the entire community. If done in accordance to God’s law, such a somber event might only transpire once or twice per generation.

            “God’s laws are for you and for me individually.”

            This is absolutely correct. But it is incomplete. The law is not only a guide for our personal lives, but it is the perfect blueprint for the ruling of a peaceful,gentle, Godly society. The ONLY choices are to rule by God’s law or man’s. Since man is fallible and corruptible, how could man’s laws be administered and adjudicated more civilly and just than God’s law?

            “[W]e are directed to await the return of Jesus to experience the reign of God’s law on earth.”

            Citation please? Romans 13 is the manual for civil government based firmly upon Yahweh’s law, as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. We are to occupy and take dominion until He returns, not twiddle our fingers.